ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Superfast Broadband

Stephen Timms: What his policy is on competition in the supply of superfast broadband services; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Hunt: Our aim is to ensure that we have as competitive a market for broadband as possible. That is why together with Ofcom we have taken a number of steps to ensure that the UK broadband market is one of the most vibrant and competitive in the world, including opening up BT’s ducts and poles to competitors and introducing new guidance on street works and micro-trenching.

Stephen Timms: So why are the Government, through the ill judged Broadband Delivery UK exercise, recreating a taxpayer-funded monopoly for superfast broadband? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of firms on his framework has now fallen from three to two, and that all the deals so far have been with one of those companies, which stands to receive more than £1.5 billion? Is it any wonder that the European Commission is challenging the legality of what he is doing, or that Britain is lagging so badly behind on superfast broadband?

Jeremy Hunt: When the right hon. Gentleman’s party left office, we had one of the slowest broadband networks in Europe; we have put in place plans that will give us one of the fastest. His party had plans that would not have seen the roll-out of superfast broadband until 2017; we have brought that forward. We have also put in almost £1 billion of public money, so I think that our results have been pretty impressive.

James Gray: Wiltshire is one of the pilot areas for the roll-out of superfast broadband in England. Will increasing competition among broadband providers hasten its arrival? Despite the excellent efforts of the outstandingly good
	Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council, none the less there have been some centrally based delays, so what can the Secretary of State do to assist in that pilot?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing everything we can to reduce those delays, including seeking early clearance of state aid from Brussels, but we have put in place a competitive process that is led by local authorities, because we think that we will get the best results by putting them in the driving seat. That is why we have had a tremendous response, including from local authorities that, in almost every case, have agreed to match the money being put in by central Government, so in Wiltshire and throughout the country we will have an extremely good broadband network, if not the best in Europe.

Duncan Hames: I welcome that response and hope the Secretary of State understands the eagerness in Wiltshire, south Gloucestershire and Swindon to proceed with their framework. Can he tell us anything about the timetable for reaching a resolution of the state aid issue with the European Commission?

Jeremy Hunt: I hope to meet Commissioner Almunia next week or, certainly, in the next few weeks to hasten that process as fast as possible, and we still very much hope that all local authorities will have signed their contracts by the end of this calendar year, so that the digging of trenches and the laying of fibre along poles can take place from the beginning of next year.

Superfast Broadband

David Davies: What recent progress he has made on his plans to ensure the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent progress he has made on his plans to ensure the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

John Howell: What recent progress he has made on his plans to ensure the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

Andrea Leadsom: What recent progress he has made on his plans to ensure the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

Jeremy Hunt: I have now approved 37 out of 43 local broadband plans—that is, almost 90% across the whole country—and nine are in procurement. A number of those are almost ready to begin delivery, and the other projects are being prepared for procurement with support from Broadband Delivery UK, which is also finalising details for the broadband delivery framework contract.

David Davies: May I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he is making on superfast broadband, but ask that this not be done at the expense of those living in remote rural areas, such as parts of Monmouthshire, who have yet to see any form of broadband whatsoever?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the whole purpose of the programme is to ensure that fast broadband speeds are available to everyone. Indeed, it is the people in the most remote areas who stand to gain the most in terms of preventing villages from being depopulated and helping people who are disabled to get their shopping done. There are all sorts of very important benefits, and I hope that the £57 million that we have allocated to Wales, which has been more than matched by the Welsh Government, will make that happen in Monmouthshire and throughout Wales.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Can the Minister confirm that when community-led schemes to bring superfast broadband to remote rural areas, such as Broadband for the Rural North in my constituency, initially raise their own funds, they will not then be discriminated against on access to future Government support?

Jeremy Hunt: We are specifically trying to set up a scheme so that, where people raise their own funds to solve broadband problems, it is possible to integrate that into the national network. Our objective is to enable as much local self-help work as possible, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s initiative and those taken by his constituents.

John Howell: Large parts of my constituency suffer from rural broadband poverty, but at an official level it is often masked because neighbouring Oxford has good broadband, and the level at which it is integrated is too great to show that granularity. What advice can my right hon. Friend give about making sure that those areas of rural broadband poverty in my constituency are recognised?

Jeremy Hunt: The comfort that I can give my hon. Friend is that our ambition, which is vastly higher than anything that we had from Labour, is that by 2015 90% of the country will have access to superfast broadband. However, it will not stop there, because we will have a plan in place for the other 10% which means that they will have a very good prospect of getting superfast broadband. In many cases—for example, in my own county of Surrey—plans are being put forward whereby there will be 100% access to superfast broadband by 2014. Good local authorities are thinking about the other 10% and making sure that they are not left behind, and we are doing everything we can to help them.

Andrea Leadsom: In my constituency we have lots of rural areas that are not going to be part of the superfast broadband roll-out. In one area in particular—in fact, it is where I happen to live—there is a large community of parishes where two thirds of people are home workers or involved in small businesses. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that we will be able to achieve access to the existing national infrastructure of fibre-optic cabling to avoid having to reinstall new cables? In this area, there is a rural grouping who are trying to gain access to existing infrastructure and being denied that by private companies.

Jeremy Hunt: The best reassurance for the people who live around my hon. Friend is probably the fact that she lives there; I am sure that means that the issue will receive a lot of attention. People in remote areas who do not have access to good broadband are at the top of
	our minds. We are determined to put in place a structure that makes sure that even if they are not in the 90% covered by 2015, they will be covered very soon afterwards or we will have a structure that allows them to be covered within that framework.

Nigel Dodds: Developing the best possible communications network is one of the key priorities for Belfast city council and the local administration in Northern Ireland, and great progress has been made. May I urge the Secretary of State to support Belfast’s bid for greater funding for superfast broadband, which is an excellent way of attracting the greater economic growth and further direct investment that we need?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, because Northern Ireland has some of the best broadband in Europe already. He is absolutely right. One of the other big differences between this Government’s policies and those of the previous Government is that we are not stopping at having superfast broadband for the whole country but want our cities to have some of the best broadband in the world and to aspire to the speeds that can be found in Singapore, Seoul and other cities. I hope that Belfast will be among them.

Chi Onwurah: In the two years since this Government took office, they have not delivered 1 metre of extra fibre or one bit of extra bandwidth. BDUK is still sorting out its super-fragmented contracting process. Up and down the country, hundreds of thousands of people are denied decent broadband because the Government abandoned our universal broadband pledge. Does the Secretary of State deny that, under Labour, this year everyone would have had access to decent broadband to play their part in the innovation economy?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me remind the hon. Lady that when her party left office there was no money left. Quite how she thought that it was going to deliver universal access to broadband by 2012 when it left the country’s finances bust, I do not know. We took a plan that was clearly not going to work and instead put in place a plan that has much higher ambitions, with not only universal access to broadband but 90% access to superfast broadband and cities with ultrafast broadband—some of the fastest broadband in the world.

John Whittingdale: One of the alternative ways of making faster broadband available is through the roll-out of 4G mobile services, but has the Secretary of State seen the analysis by Freeview that suggests that over 2 million homes may have their digital television service interfered with as a result, and that the funds secured by the Government to counter that interference may not be anything like sufficient? Does he agree with that analysis, and what is he proposing to do about it?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree that the roll-out of 4G is another opportunity. One of the options proposed by Ofcom would mean 98% coverage of 4G, which would be extremely important in many of the rural areas about which hon. Friends are concerned. We have an ongoing consultation about the mitigation plans for
	people whose signals will be affected by these auctions. Ofcom has not told me that it has any concerns about the plans that are in place, but I will listen to it very carefully in that regard.

Local Newspapers

Jonathan Edwards: What recent discussions he has had on the future of local newspapers.

Edward Vaizey: The Secretary of State specifically has had no recent discussions. However, I have taken part in a number of recent debates and events, including a Westminster Hall debate on 25 April, which was attended by no fewer than 50 colleagues, and a meeting with Johnston Press at the end of May, which 25 colleagues attended.

Jonathan Edwards: What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to extend the provisions of the Localism Act 2012 to include local newspapers as community assets? Under the terms of the Act, that would offer threatened newspapers a stay of execution while alternative ownership models were explored.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As he knows, the Department for Communities and Local Government has been successful in stopping local council newspapers competing with local newspapers, but local newspapers are private assets and I would be surprised if they could be registered as community assets under the right to buy. This is the first time I have heard this idea, however, and I will certainly let the Department for Communities and Local Government know that it is being proposed.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister talk to our colleagues in the Department for Transport, who are now considering responses to consultation about transport adverts in local papers, to see whether his Department could support the presumption that public notices should be in local papers unless a clear majority of councillors and the public think that there is better way of reaching the public?

Edward Vaizey: That consultation is being handled by our Liberal Democrat colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I am sure that he will not sit on the fence when it comes to making a decision on that issue.

Helen Goodman: In recent years, 242 local papers have closed. Meanwhile, Ministers are throwing £40 million into local television, which will only add to the competition for advertising that local papers face. I know that Ministers have recently had some difficulty remembering all their conversations, but will the Minister tell us when they last discussed local television with News Corporation?

Edward Vaizey: I am not aware that we have had discussions with News Corporation, but I will certainly look at the Department’s records. Local television is certainly an opportunity for local media, and—[ Interruption. ] I will write to the hon. Lady about this; I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for that lesson in etiquette, which I shall take on board. Many local newspaper groups are interested in local television, and I think this is a potential opportunity for local newspapers.

Special Advisers

John Mann: What arrangements he has put in place to recruit a new special adviser.

Jeremy Hunt: I recently appointed Guy Levin as my new special adviser, and he started this week.

John Mann: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Government special advisers are meeting as a group on a fairly regular basis, doubtless to get their instructions from 10 Downing street. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he receives a written report on those meetings, and that such reports are made public so that we can all see precisely what instructions 10 Downing street is giving to his and other special advisers?

Jeremy Hunt: We will be at least as transparent as the last Government on these matters, if not more so.

Jim Sheridan: Will this new special adviser be an additional cost to the taxpayer, or will he come from within the ranks of the Government?

Jeremy Hunt: There will be no additional cost to the Government on top of the existing budget for special advisers.

Children’s Health (Advertising)

Chris Ruane: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of advertising aimed at children on (a) childhood obesity and (b) children’s mental health.

Edward Vaizey: No assessment has been made. The rules on advertising content standards are the responsibility of the independent regulators—the Advertising Standards Authority and Ofcom. It is for those regulators to assess the sort of material that is appropriate for different audiences.

Chris Ruane: Half the adverts aimed at children encourage them to gorge on junk food and become obese, while the other half extol the virtues of size zero. Is it any wonder that 20% of children suffer with mental illness? Will the Minister look at the example of Sweden, which has banned advertising aimed at the under-12s?

Edward Vaizey: Ofcom already has regulations in place to prevent the advertising of high fat, sugar and salt products in children’s programming. I understand that those regulations have had an effect, in that the exposure of young children to that kind of marketing has been reduced by between one third and a half.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Do you feel that it is time for the relevant Health Minister and yourself to have a joint campaign to address—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming a more experienced Member by the day. I ask him not to use the word “you”. Debates, including questions, go through the Chair. He is asking the Minister for a response. Perhaps he will complete his question. We look forward to it.

Jim Shannon: Thank you for that correction, Mr Speaker.
	Would the Minister consider having a joint campaign between his Department and the Department of Health to ensure that the effect of advertising on children’s health is better addressed?

Edward Vaizey: I will take on board the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that I should meet colleagues at the Department of Health to discuss what further measures we can take.

Clive Efford: Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation report that highlights that young people, in particular young women, have problems with image and participation in sport that are leading to higher levels of obesity? I realise that sport is not his area of expertise, but what can his Department do to address the issues raised in that important report and to ensure that more young people participate in sport?

Edward Vaizey: Sport is certainly not my area of expertise, in every sense of the word. One only has to look at me to understand that. However, I do possess a talent for watching sport. I can give the hon. Gentleman the good news that my colleague, the Minister for Sport, has read the report and is working with Sport England on its recommendations.

Get Set Programme

Stephen Lloyd: How many schools have registered for the Get Set programme; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: Nearly 26,000 schools and colleges in the United Kingdom are registered with Get Set, which is 84% of those that are eligible. Of those, 18,763 have gone on to join the Get Set network, and of those, nearly 16,000 have qualified for a share of up to 175,000 free games tickets, which are being funded through a levy on corporate hospitality.

Stephen Lloyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. What resources will the Department make available to the schools that have signed up for the Get Set programme, and what incentives are in place to ensure a high level of participation from schools?

Hugh Robertson: The programme is run by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, so it is providing the resources. The incentives to schools to sign up included the fact that the Olympics were coming here in any event and will be very big news this summer, and the free games tickets that I mentioned.

Tessa Jowell: The Get Set programme is inspiring young people across the country through the Olympic values of equality, respect, friendship, courage and excellence. Forty years ago, those values came under attack during the terrible massacre of nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games. Yesterday, I wrote to you, Mr Speaker, requesting that we mark that tragedy in this House with a minute’s silence. Does the Minister agree that we should mark that tragic event, and will he undertake his own representations to you, Mr Speaker, on the matter?

Hugh Robertson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that question. Before I answer it, as this is the last DCMS questions before the Olympic games on 27 July, may I record all our thanks to her and to all parliamentarians across the House—a number of whom are sitting at the back of the Labour Benches—who have contributed to the delivery of the London Olympic and Paralympic games?
	The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the tragic events in Munich 40 years ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is attending a commemoration event in the Guildhall during the games. I visited the Israeli Olympic committee some years ago when I was in opposition and am well aware of the importance of this matter to the state of Israel and to the Olympic movement. I will do everything that I can to ensure that it is marked in an appropriate fashion.

Children (Sport)

Helen Grant: What progress he has made on encouraging more children to take part in competitive sport.

Hugh Robertson: Through the school games, we are encouraging all schools to offer their pupils the chance to play more competitive sport. The number of schools participating is now more than 13,500. Additionally, 64 county festivals of sport will take place this year, with more than 112,000 children taking part. We also had the inaugural national finals in May, where more than 1,600 of our best young athletes competed in and around the Olympic park. I know that as a great champion of sport in the county of Kent, my hon. Friend will be delighted that the Kent school games were launched on Tuesday night.

Helen Grant: Can the Minister update the House on the success of the Government’s school games?

Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. This year’s school games were an unusually successful event, precisely because of the proximity of London’s Olympics. Thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the finals were able to take place in the Olympic park, giving young athletes the chance to compete on the
	same stretch of track that the world’s best athletes will compete on in six weeks’ time. As I said, more than 1,600 children had that opportunity.

Gerry Sutcliffe: When we left office, 90% of children were doing at least two hours of sport a week, and some were doing a lot more. Does the Minister know what the current figure is?

Hugh Robertson: Yes I do, because the Secretary of State for Education has helpfully—unlike under the previous Administration, as the hon. Gentleman draws that comparison—made physical education one of only four core parts of the school curriculum, so everybody will at last be doing it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a great supporter of sport, will support that.

Damian Collins: Football remains a very popular competitive sport for people of all ages. Does the Minister share my concern about the loss in the High Court of HMRC’s case against the football creditors rule, and will he discuss with his ministerial colleagues whether the Government may legislate to get rid of that rule, for which even the chairman of the Football League has said he cannot find any moral justification?

Hugh Robertson: One of the interesting things that came out of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s report on football governance, in which my hon. Friend played a key part, was that almost nobody responsible for football at any level tried to defend the football creditors rule. I know that he has a private Member’s Bill to abolish it. I believe that HMRC is contemplating an appeal against the decision, and clearly we want to wait and see how that plays out, but I believe it is a rule that has had its day.

Derek Twigg: One problem is that once young people reach the age of 16 and leave school, they tend to drop out of sport in great numbers. Many people aged 16-plus go on to college and university. What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department for Education about how we can address the problem and encourage more and more young people to continue with some sort of sporting activity?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Indeed, if we look back over the past 20 years or so, we see that the one thing that nobody has really managed to address has been post-school dropout. We are trying a new approach via the new youth sport strategy, which will be the key component of the next round of whole-sport plans. I very much hope that by linking schools much better to community clubs and putting people into colleges of higher education, which have not been well covered, we will tackle the problem in the next cycle.

Richard Graham: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is no hurry. I have seen the hon. Gentleman, but I am saving him up for his own question, which we will reach in due course.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that young people are inspired to get into sport by top sportspeople. Does he share my concern about what happened yesterday with the bidding for the Premier League broadcast rights? The empire of people who some of us do not think are fit and proper to have senior positions in the media has yet again got the bulk of Premier League matches.

Hugh Robertson: That is an interesting point, but it is a very complex matter. One of the very first things that I did as a new Minister was to secure an agreement from all UK sport governing bodies, to which the Premier League voluntarily signed up, to invest 30% of their UK broadcast income into the grass roots. If the league makes more money, that means more money for the grass roots, which we should support. The interesting point about yesterday’s announcement was the arrival for the first time of BT as a partner. I hope that that produces more competitive tension in the market.

Mr Speaker: Pat Glass. Not here.

Registrar of the Public Lending Right

Tom Blenkinsop: What plans he has for the post of Registrar of the Public Lending Right.

Edward Vaizey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting on the future of the Registrar of the Public Lending Right. Our proposed transfer of the function of the registrar, which currently exists as a standalone public body, would contribute to the Government’s commitment to simplifying the public bodies landscape and at the same time maintain and ensure the effective, efficient and impartial administration of the PLR scheme.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the Minister, but does he agree with the second children’s laureate, Anne Fine, that the proposed reorganisation of the registrar is based purely on ideology and will cost the taxpayer more money than it saves?

Edward Vaizey: No.

James Wharton: I thank the Minister for the work he has done with me in representing my constituents who work at the PLR, which is in my constituency. Will he confirm that the Government’s preferred option for the reorganisation of the PLR is one that will mean that jobs are not transferred from Teesside to London?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend has been absolutely assiduous in representing the concerns of the people who work at the PLR in conversations with me and in writing to me. That stands testament to the active work of a great constituency MP. It is certainly part of our preferred option to ensure that jobs remain in the north and do not transfer to London.

Dan Jarvis: It is now increasingly accepted that part of the long-term future of book lending lies in e-books being available in all libraries. In
	order for our libraries to move into the 21st century, the tensions between the public lending rights scheme and e-books must be addressed. Will the Minister therefore tell the House why he has not moved to implement the extension of the public lending right to e-books, as mandated in section 43 of the Digital Economy Act 2010?

Edward Vaizey: Part of the problem with e-books is that most publishers do not want e-books lent in libraries. I have had discussions with publishers on that on at least two occasions, and would happily discuss it jointly with publishers and the hon. Gentleman so he can hear their views first hand.

Olympics (New Sport)

Richard Graham: What recent discussions he has had on nominating a new sport for the next Olympics.

Hugh Robertson: This is a matter for the International Olympic Committee, but I am aware of the ambitions of a number of sports. London 2012 will feature 26 sports in its programme. That will rise to 28 for Rio 2016, when golf and rugby sevens are added to the mix. Decisions about the 2020 summer games will be taken by the IOC in 2013.

Richard Graham: The Minister knows of one sport that is played by more than half a million people in this country and many millions worldwide, on more than 50,000 courts, and in which the current men’s world champion is from this country: squash. Does he agree that the case for squash is strong and that it should be supported as much as possible? Will he meet me, UK Sport and the World Squash Federation, which is headquartered here in London? Lastly, will he, and indeed you, Mr Speaker, agree to join a team that I intend to put together—a Lords and Commons squash team—to play squash on world squash day in October this year to support the bid?

Mr Speaker: We all look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s upcoming Adjournment debate on these matters—although some people might think he has already had it.

Hugh Robertson: I was heartily relieved that my hon. Friend identified the sport at the end of his question, before I had what is known as a Caborn moment. The simple answer to his question is that I am well aware of the ambitions of squash, and indeed of lacrosse, netball and a number of other worthy sports. [ Interruption. ] That list could go on for ever. The decision is for the IOC, but I will do everything I can to promote those British sports in which, as my hon. Friend correctly says, we would have a good chance of winning a medal.

Kevin Brennan: The Minister is aware that rugby sevens will be a new sport in the 2016 Olympics. Given the tensions about Team GB in football, are he and the UK Government discussing with devolved Ministers how to get over the thorny issue of having a UK rugby sevens team?

Hugh Robertson: To be honest, football is a bit of a one-off in that respect; there is absolutely no problem with GB teams in the other 25 sports. Rugby is in the
	process of assembling the necessary GB structures to support a team, in just the same way as golf is. I hope nobody stands in front of the ability of UK athletes to compete in an Olympic games for political reasons.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) asked about the inclusion of a new sport, but some sports have been squeezed out of the Olympics. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the French should have a chance to upgrade their silver medal at cricket, which they have held for the past 100 years, and that we should bring Twenty20 cricket into the Olympics?

Hugh Robertson: That campaign is often run mainly by Australians—or used to be, until they slipped down the test rankings. Personally, I think it is important that for any sport trying to join the Olympic mix it should be the height of an athlete’s career to win a gold medal. I think that that is the case for rugby sevens, but I would need persuading that the height of an international cricketer’s career would be to win an Olympic gold medal, rather than an International Cricket Council world cup.

Jim McGovern: It has been brought to my attention that one of Britain’s greatest ever Olympians, Dick McTaggart, who was born and brought up just down the road from me in Dundee, who won a boxing gold medal in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics and a bronze medal in Rome in 1960, and who also competed in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, has been told that if he wishes to attend the London Olympics he should put his name in a lottery, and that if he is lucky enough to have his name drawn out, he could buy a ticket for £250—and that might not even be for boxing; it might be for synchronised swimming. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that Mr McTaggart is invited as a VIP guest to the London Olympics?

Hugh Robertson: I am not sure how Mr McTaggart has managed to get himself into that situation. There are two things he ought to do almost straightaway. First, he should go to the national governing body for boxing in Great Britain, whose president is the former Sports Minister—that would be a very good start. If that fails, however, he should approach the Olympians organisation run by the British Olympic Association, which exists precisely to ensure that former members of the Olympic family can attend events.

Topical Questions

Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, I would like to make a statement, as these are the last Culture, Media and Sport questions before the London 2012 games.
	I would like to take this opportunity to express the Government’s thanks to everyone involved in the organisation of this tremendous project and, on behalf of the whole House, to wish Team GB the very best of luck in getting a record haul of medals this summer. With 43 days to go until the opening ceremony, the project is in a strong position. We have shown beyond
	doubt that Britain can deliver big construction projects on time and to budget, and yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics announced that there was still nearly £500 million in the contingency fund. We can also be proud of the legacy that the games will leave, including the transformation of east London, the regeneration of our tourism industry and thousands more children taking part in Olympic sport through the school games. Some 2.7 million people have already lined the streets to see the torch, but we can be confident that the best is yet to come.

Ian Lucas: Freeview has been a hugely successful way of delivering free-to-air digital television services, but its future is threatened by the upcoming 4G auction. Will the Minister look at the £180 million that the Government have set aside to assist those whose signal is affected, even though Sky will not like it?

Jeremy Hunt: I am a Freeview subscriber, or customer, myself. We have put in place a comprehensive programme, but Ofcom is now consulting on whether it is adequate, and we will listen carefully to any advice we receive from it.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Following on from the questions about superfast broadband, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to meet the Broadband for the Rural North community group in my constituency or visit the Lancashire uplands, taste the air there and see what extra we can do to maintain the momentum of this vital project.

Jeremy Hunt: We would be delighted to provide support in any way we can, and certainly I or the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), would be delighted to meet him and his constituents.

Harriet Harman: Last year, the Secretary of State promised a Green Paper to set out his strategy for the creative and technology industries. These industries are vital for the future of the British economy, and it is his job to back them up. Last week, the Green Paper was scrapped, and after a whole year of consultation and anticipation, there is now disarray. Is that because it has been vetoed by Google, or is he a lame duck Secretary of State who cannot stand up for the industry?

Jeremy Hunt: I am incredibly proud of our progress on the creative industries in the past two years, including through tax credits for the video games industry, the animation industry and high-end television production, and through putting in place plans for the best superfast broadband network in Europe. That is vastly more than anything that the right hon. and learned Lady’s Government achieved. We will continue with the legislative programme to ensure that Parliament passes a communications Bill before the end of the Session to give our creative and digital industries the best possible competitive future.

Andrea Leadsom: Many parents across the country are very concerned about the content of sex and relationships educational videos that are being shown to children as
	young as six and which have had no external rating whatever—in fact, they are being sold for profit by organisations. Will the Minister consider requiring the rating of such videos by the British Board of Film Classification?

Edward Vaizey: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns. As a result of the point she has made, I will arrange to meet the British Board of Film Classification to discuss the issue, and she would be welcome to attend.

Anas Sarwar: Alex Salmond told the Leveson inquiry yesterday that he secretly backed the BSkyB bid because of the positive effect it would have on employment in Scotland, yet at the same time his now Employment Minister was signing a motion against the bid, while his MPs in Westminster were also voting against it. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether News Corp gave any indication of what the implications of the bid would be for employment in Scotland?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not recall hearing any such implications myself.

Karen Lumley: With the entire country getting into the Olympic spirit thanks to the torch relay, which passes through Redditch in a couple of weeks, will my hon. Friend look into the fact that no local residents from Redditch will be carrying the torch?

Hugh Robertson: The best answer to that would be for my hon. Friend to take the issue up with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, which is responsible for nominating people. She should just be aware that a number of people have been nominated by the sponsors. However, places have gone to local people, so she may find them hidden in the sponsors’ allocations.

Jim Cunningham: Earlier, the Secretary of State said in reply to one of my hon. Friends that there was no money left to expand broadband when he came into office. Where did he get the money, then?

Jeremy Hunt: By extremely clever use of resources, by agreeing a licence fee settlement with the BBC in record time, which allowed that investment to made, and by setting up a structure in which local authorities were willing to match fund money put in by the centre.

Anna Soubry: Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about the cost to households receiving free-to-view television and the impact of 4G broadband, will the Secretary of State look again at helping householders with the cost of installing professional filters to deal with the problem?

Jeremy Hunt: That is precisely what we are currently looking at. There is a consultation under way and we are looking at the problem carefully. We take it very
	seriously and welcome any representations made by my hon. Friend or any other Members to ensure that we get this right.

John Cryer: Has the Secretary of State found time to explain the ministerial code of conduct to his new special adviser, and if so, when?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman can be sure that I will be finding plenty of time to explain the ministerial code in a great deal of detail to my new special adviser.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Olympic silver and gold medallists Ann Brightwell—formerly Ann Packer—and her husband, councillor Robbie Brightwell, on the impressive array of sporting activities, involving all ages, that they are inspiring under the banner of Team Congleton? Does he agree that just that kind of local leadership is key to achieving the lasting Olympic legacy of increased sports participation of all ages?

Hugh Robertson: I would be very happy to do that. Will my hon. Friend please send my congratulations to them both?

Julie Hilling: Two weeks ago, we had the honour of welcoming the Olympic torch to Bolton West. It was a wonderful event and the community turned out in force. However, I have been concerned to hear rumours and press reports that some of the community champions selected to carry the torch have been replaced by people who have paid to carry it. Does the Minister know whether those rumours are true, and will he be investigating?

Hugh Robertson: I have seen absolutely no evidence that that is the case. The majority of torch bearers are nominated by LOCOG, which has specifically gone out looking for community champions with the sponsors, which is where quite a lot of the controversy lies. LOCOG also wrote to the sponsors, discouraging them from allowing executives to run with the torch and encouraging them to find as many local champions as possible.

Don Foster: Will lottery good causes be among the beneficiaries of any underspend in the Olympic budget?

Hugh Robertson: I think the key thing is to deliver the underspend first; then we will work out how to spend it.

Pete Wishart: Following the question from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), can the Minister guarantee and assure the charities and good causes that have lost out to the Olympics that they will get the contingency underspend? Surely they deserve it, and it should not go back to the black hole of the Treasury.

Hugh Robertson: Under an agreement concluded by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), as soon as the land sales are completed on the park, the lottery will be repaid; indeed, that memorandum of understanding was improved when
	the transfer was made from the old Olympic Park Legacy Company to the new London Legacy Development Corporation. As I say, I do not want to get into discussions about how we might spend a putative underspend until we have actually delivered it. The key thing is to make sure we deliver these games on time and substantially under budget.

Tracey Crouch: The Sports Minister will be aware that one of the factors in keeping girls involved in sport is the distinct lack of coverage in our national and local newspapers. Will he consider holding a round-table discussion with national and local media organisations to address that issue in the long term?

Hugh Robertson: One of the joys of my job is that I end up having round-table discussions with the media on a pretty regular basis—we did five hours of it yesterday. The great thing provided by the Olympics, above almost any other sports event I can think of, is the opportunity to promote the equality of sport. In Team GB, some of the most exciting prospects are our female sportswomen. I wish them all the very best and hope that they will drive the sort of improvement that my hon. Friend seeks.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Secretary of State accept that a reduction in VAT for hotel accommodation and tourist attractions would deliver a huge boost to jobs and tourism in places such as Brighton and Hove, would bring us into line with the rest of the EU, most of which has much lower VAT on hotels and visitor attractions, and would deliver a net benefit to the Treasury? What’s not to like?

John Penrose: The industry is making this case very strongly to the Treasury and it is clearly an issue for the Treasury to respond to. What is causing problems at the moment is that the industry is promising higher returns, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, but the Treasury gets an awful lot of such promises from a whole variety of different parts of the economy and it would need some positive proof before it would be willing to engage on such an issue.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

House of Commons Reform

Paul Flynn: What progress he has made on the implementation of the Wright proposals on House of Commons reform in the last 12 months.

David Heath: This Government have successfully implemented recommendations to introduce elections to Select Committee membership, established a Backbench Business Committee and, within the last 12 months, introduced an e-petition system to achieve a greater degree of public participation. The
	majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than the Government.

Paul Flynn: Can we improve the choreography of the parliamentary week by doing what the Wright proposals suggested—moving Prime Minister’s Question Time to Thursdays, allowing Wednesdays to be used for the increasingly important Back-Bench business debates?

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Procedure Committee is now completing and in the very late stages of production of a report on the parliamentary calendar. We would prefer to wait and see what suggestions the Procedure Committee makes rather than taking a unilateral view on what is best for the House.

Harriett Baldwin: What is the Government’s analysis of the effect of adopting the recommendations in the Wright Committee report? I understand that the creation of the Backbench Business Committee was blocked by the previous Government.

David Heath: It was indeed; there was no progress whatever under the previous Government on this matter. I am very proud of the fact that we moved quickly to establish the Backbench Business Committee. Speaking personally, I think it has been a great success. It is something that the House should have done some time ago. I look forward to building on it in the years to come, and I look forward to the review of the Backbench Business Committee’s work, which will give us an indication of how the House views its performance more widely.

Angela Eagle: The Wright proposals are about increasing ministerial accountability to this House, but there have been too many examples recently of Ministers preferring to do anything other than appear at the Dispatch Box to make statements on their own responsibilities or face departmental questions. This is a huge discourtesy not only to you, Mr Speaker, but to Parliament. To tackle this, might the Leader of the House consider introducing a penalty points system—or, with a reshuffle on the way, a “three strikes and you’re out” rule?

David Heath: That was what might be considered a bold attempt to transfer the answer for Question 1 that the hon. Lady had prepared to Question 2. I do not think that the Wright Committee was in any way concerned with the subject to which she referred. As she has raised the issue, however, let me remind her that the present Government have, on average, made more statements than their predecessors. We made 191 in the last Session, an average of 0.7 per sitting day, which compares favourably with the last Administration’s average of 0.4 per sitting day during the 2009-10 Session. We did almost twice as well as they did.

e-Petitions

James Morris: What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on debates on e-petitions.

David Heath: Following the Procedure Committee’s report, we have updated and improved the e-petitions website. We have improved, for instance, the wording of the site and the search and submission functions, making the process easier and clearer for the more than 3 million people who have signed an e-petition since August last year.

James Morris: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that one solution to the problem of debating e-petitions would be for the Government to table a motion allowing Westminster Hall sittings on Monday afternoons during which e-petition topics could be debated?

David Heath: We are very sympathetic to that view. In fact, we said in our response to the Procedure Committee’s report that we supported its proposals for a pilot. It is for the Procedure Committee to present such proposals in Back-Bench time, but we are working well with the Committee to enable the House to reach what I hope will be a swift decision.

Barry Sheerman: I think that the Deputy Leader of the House will accept that our old friend Tony Wright, who was responsible for the recommendations of the Public Administration Committee, would want the House continually to evaluate the way in which their implementation is working. There is no doubt about the success of the Backbench Business Committee, but e-petitions seem to have been taken over by elements of the popular press such as The Sun and the Daily Mail. How are we going to react to that? It is not the way in which the system was intended to work.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. This was never intended to be simply a cut-out-and-send-back element in a tabloid newspaper’s campaign, but there is no evidence that all e-petitions are of that type: in many cases, they constitute a genuine expression of public sentiment on a subject. Besides, we have the filter of the Backbench Business Committee, which considers whether the House has already debated the issue in question, or will have an opportunity to do so in the near future. When the Committee considers it right for a debate to take place, it will stage one, and I think that it is doing a very good job in that regard. However, we are constantly evaluating what has happened, and we are keen to learn from the experience in order to make the arrangement even better.

Legislative Programme

John Mann: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on scheduling of business to achieve the Government's legislative programme.

David Heath: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regularly meets colleagues in Government to discuss the legislative programme in order to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate Government legislation fully.

John Mann: There is no problem with debating Government legislation fully, because the Government have hardly any legislation to introduce in this increasingly part-time Parliament. Given that they have no ideas to present, will the Leader of the House make better provision for Back Benchers, including me, who have a whole raft of Bills to introduce which the public would like to see implemented? Will he give us time in which to introduce them, or not?

David Heath: We are seeing an interesting juxtaposition. Our Department is so often criticised for providing insufficient time for Members to consider legislation properly, and now the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is too much time for them to do so. I remind him that, only a few weeks after the Queen’s Speech, 11 Bills are already before Parliament. I entirely reject his criticism that there is any deficit in terms of the legislation that is before the House.

Christopher Pincher: I understand that during the last Parliament there was criticism of the amount of time given over to scrutiny of legislation. This Government are remedying that. Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that this Government will always give over appropriate time for scrutiny of legislation on Report?

David Heath: That is absolutely right, and I was one of those who led the criticism of the previous Government, as so often we found that the time for scrutiny was constrained. One of the key areas is Report stage. We have been very careful to allocate more time for that—very often more than one day—to enable Back-Bench Members to have their say. There is a quid pro quo, however: when we do provide more time, it is important that the House uses that time in a sensible way and makes sure that matters that need to be discussed are discussed in a timely fashion.

Private Members’ Bills

David Hamilton: Whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to reform the scrutiny of private Members’ Bills.

David Heath: I understand that the Procedure Committee has today announced that it will be conducting an inquiry into the procedures for consideration of private Members’ Bills and that it will put out a call for written evidence soon. I look forward to learning of its considerations and any recommendations it may put to the House.

David Hamilton: Will the Deputy Leader of the House address the fact that we currently have an archaic system, and give due consideration to the private Members’ Bills issue? If we change our hours, such Bills could be introduced on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, with votes at the end of the debate. We must get rid of our current archaic system, whereby the awkward squad on the Government Back Benches can talk out very good Bills introduced by Members on both sides of the House.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has probably given the subject headings for the submissions he will put to the Procedure Committee. It is not for me to determine the outcome of this inquiry, but I look forward to hearing what the Committee has to say, because all of us have felt for some time that the matter is worth looking into.

Greg Knight: Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee would be delighted if the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) were to come along and give evidence to us? He is hereby invited to do so.

David Heath: I am happy to act as a conduit for that invitation, and I hope it will be accepted.

House Business Committee

Peter Bone: What progress he has made on introducing a House business committee.

George Young: As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend on 19 April, we plan to honour our commitment in the programme for Government to establish a House business committee by the third year of this Parliament.

Peter Bone: By decentralising power and reforming Parliament, we can redistribute power away from an over-mighty Executive. The House of Commons should have power “over its own timetable.” Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister. Why is the Leader of the House dragging his feet? Surely he should be supporting our wonderful Prime Minister?

George Young: We have not dragged our feet. As my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), has just explained, at the first possible opportunity in this Parliament we introduced a Backbench Business Committee, which had been obstructed by the previous Administration, and we also made a commitment, which Labour never made, to introduce a House business committee by the third year. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in April, we propose to honour that commitment, and I reject his suggestion that we have dragged our feet.

Natascha Engel: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that any House business committee will be entirely separate from the Backbench Business Committee?

George Young: I am very happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. We plan to keep the Backbench Business Committee in its current form. The committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough referred would look at Government business, and the two would work in parallel; the second would not displace the first.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a guarantee that when the House business committee is set up there will be full and proper representation of
	the smaller parties in this House, and that those Members will be able to participate fully?

George Young: I understand the concern the right hon. Gentleman expresses, and it is a concern that he also expressed when we set up the Backbench Business Committee. When the relevant proposals come forward, there will be an opportunity to take on board the representation he has just made.

Pete Wishart: So far, the Wright Committee proposals have been a disaster for the smaller parties—fewer places for us on Select Committees; exclusion from the Backbench Business Committee. We need an absolute guarantee that, this time around, there will be representatives of the smaller parties on the House business committee.

George Young: The harsh reality is that the hon. Gentleman represents a minority party. He will know that the way in which Select Committees are composed represents the balance in the House, and a Select Committee would have to be very big indeed for him to have a place as of right. We have recently changed the rules for the Backbench Business Committee to give access to him which he did not have before. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we will look in the round at the proposals for a House business committee when the opportunity presents itself.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Cycling

Julian Huppert: What proposals the Commission has to make it easier for hon. Members and staff to cycle to the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: The House actively encourages cycling to work: officials work closely with the bicycle user group to review facilities for cyclists; a scheme is in hand to increase the number of bicycle parking spaces from about 250 to about 350; the House supported and enabled the establishment of the Barclays cycle hire station at Abingdon Green; a Dr Bike free maintenance
	check is available, as are facilities such as showers, lockers, bicycle tools and pumps—more showers will be provided this autumn; and, finally, there is a loan scheme for staff which can be used to buy cycles and safety equipment, and a cycle to work salary sacrifice scheme for staff is being implemented.

Mr Speaker: I have no idea what more there could be to ask, but I have a feeling that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have an idea.

Julian Huppert: I thank my hon. Friend for that list. It is good to see that the House is taking some steps towards promoting cycling to work here, but more could be done to ensure that cycle parking is covered, that bikes are available for hon. Members and staff to borrow for short trips around central London, that cycle training is available for those Members who do not know how to ride a bike and would like to learn, and that people no longer need a pass to exit this place by bike.

John Thurso: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his lengthy but good list of aspirations. I know that he is a highly committed co-chair of the all-party group on cycling and was a leading member on the parliamentary bike run last Tuesday. I am sure that the members of the Commission and the management board, and the director general responsible, will have listened attentively to his requests and will do everything possible to implement them.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Commission believe that closing the road outside the Houses of Parliament would greatly assist in trying to promote cycling?

John Thurso: It is a subject on which the Commission has not yet deliberated but, as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I am sure that the Commission now will.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members; normally, I try to get through the whole list, but there is considerable pressure on time today, so we will move on to the urgent question from Amber Rudd. Just before she takes to her feet, I should just explain that this absolutely will not run any longer than midday and it could run for a lesser time—we shall see. There is heavy pressure on time, this is important and we will now hear from Amber Rudd.

Fish Discards

Amber Rudd: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement about the decision on fish discards arrived at this week in the European Council meeting of Fisheries Ministers.

Richard Benyon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking this question, as it gives me the opportunity to run through some of what we achieved in the small hours of the morning in Luxembourg. On 12-13 June, I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg to discuss the reform of the common fisheries policy. This was a critical negotiation where I was asked to give my agreement on key elements of this once-in-a-decade opportunity to reform the broken CFP, through agreement of a “General Approach” text. My aim has all along been to combine radical political ambition with a strong focus on the practical means to ensure early delivery. I am pleased to report to the House that we secured agreement to key planks of the reform we are seeking. This includes some key demands that I know the House has sought previously, and that remain hugely important to the British public.
	We successfully made the case for measures to progressively eliminate discards, with deadlines that kick in quickly after the conclusion of the reform. The text provides for a landing obligation in pelagic fisheries from 2014, and a staged implementation in our other fisheries between 2015 and 2018. Although not all member states shared our ambition for urgent action, a commitment to implement a landing obligation, with a provisional timetable, is a major step in the right direction.
	We also secured the inclusion of provisions setting out a genuine regionalised process to replace the centralised one-size-fits-all approach. The UK has led work with other member states over the last year to find solutions to that. The provisions allow us to work together regionally—for example with other North sea member states, to agree the measures appropriate to our fisheries. That is a crucial start in moving decision making closer to fisheries.
	As for my other top priority, we secured a responsible approach to setting fishing levels. Overfishing has been a central failing of the CFP, and the UK was adamant that the text should include a clear legal commitment, and deadlines for that, to achieve maximum sustainable yield in line with our international commitments. Through the discussions in Council, the UK has played a leading role in developing solutions and building alliances with other member states to shape the text we agreed in the early hours of yesterday.
	This is not the end of the process. The Council of Ministers has now given a clear steer but the dossier will be co-decided with the European Parliament, so we will continue to work with others to improve the legal provisions and we will also guard against any weakening of the approach. This is a major step towards real reform on a long and difficult road and I do not expect these negotiations to conclude until well into 2013.

Amber Rudd: I thank the Minister for that answer. This achievement on a discard ban is a welcome step forward. Fish discards are recognised universally as obscene and unacceptable and I want to press the Minister, if possible, on certain elements of the subject. What are his views on slippage in the timetable, on the plans for implementation and on the consequences of the agreement for our fishing communities?
	What confidence does the Minister have in the timetable? It has already slipped from the original proposals, so will 2018 not be considered by some as the marine equivalent of the long grass? The industry is willing to move towards the ban, but what support will it get for the change in gears and working methods that will be needed to meet the requirements? Everyone can and will welcome the commitment, but what structure will be put in place to help delivery of the outcome while working within a quota system?
	As the Minister will know, the problem of discards cannot be wished away without the means being provided. What are those means to be? Maximum sustainable yield is at least as important as the discards announcement and there is universal recognition that stock levels need to improve following years of overfishing. The statement says that maximum sustainable yield should be achieved “where possible” by 2015; what confidence does the Minister have in the phrase “where possible”? As the level of available scientific data is ever increasing, does the Minister agree that that adds weight to the target and, one would hope, momentum towards achieving it by 2015?
	I particularly welcome the regionalised approach set out in the announcement. The previous one-size-fits-all approach of the common fisheries policy has failed. Mesh sizes in Hastings were decided in Brussels, which was absolutely absurd. Will the Minister tell us how he expects those welcome changes to impact on the everyday ability of the small fishing fleets up and down the country to carry on fishing? I know that he is acutely aware of the need for a fairer allocation of quota to support the smaller fishing communities. Can he tell us whether the proposed regionalisation addressed by the Fisheries Council will lead to a brighter future for the fishermen of Britain?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of the timings of any discard or land-all obligation. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom’s ambitions were greater than some of the dates in the proposal. They are only proposed dates, but I can assure her that they are considerably better than some of the dates being discussed in the wee small hours, which could definitely, and quite rightly, be construed as slippage or kicking the issue into the long grass.
	Let us look closely at the dates. Unfortunately, the reform will not be in place until the end of 2013, but from 1 January 2014 there will be implementation of a discard ban on herring, mackerel and other pelagic stocks. The year 2015 will see the emergence of white fish land-all obligations, so we will be well ahead with many stocks in many fisheries ahead of the 2016 date, which was seen by many as the measure. However, some will not come in until 2018, as my hon. Friend says. Many of the fishermen in her constituency and elsewhere dislike the top-down management of fisheries for a variety of reasons, but often because of the controls
	that are imposed, such as catch composition measures and effort controls. A lot of those are incompatible with discards, so we have secured in the text a commitment to remove those where possible. I look forward to working through the detail of that.
	On maximum sustainable yield, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is the international obligation to fish to MSY by 2015 where possible. The difference now is that we are proposing that what was a political statement should be a legal requirement. That is a major step forward. On the regionalised approach, it has to be said that when we were starting this reform process, the UK was a lone voice in calling for an end to the top-down management of fisheries. We now have allies and have got that into the text, which is a major achievement. Let us look at what this means for the small, inshore fleets. Like all fishermen, what they want most of all are more fish to catch. Fishing to MSY will mean that fish stocks will recover faster and better, so there will be more fish in the sea for such fleets to exploit. They will also see an end to the system that my hon. Friend described in which eliminator panels sit in a particular net and mesh sizes are decided perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles away from the seas in which those fishermen fish. This is a major step forward. There is much more work to be done and I assure her that it will not be through any lack of effort if we do not get precisely what we want in the text.

Tom Harris: May I begin by saying how disappointed I am that this important issue is being dealt with through an urgent question rather than a formal statement by the Government?
	There are elements of this agreement that will be welcomed on this side of the House and throughout the country, chief among them being the agreement in principle on a ban on the shameful practice of discards. However, any deadlines that were discussed were vague and did not feature explicitly in the final agreement. Why was this? Can the Minister tell the House if Tuesday’s meeting ended with a comprehensive vote including all participating members? A commitment without a deadline is no commitment at all. Without a legally enforceable deadline, what assurances can the Government give that the practice of discards will indeed end in the time scale he envisages? The Minister told The Guardian on Monday that as he entered negotiations in Luxembourg, the Government had
	“still not fully worked out its position”
	regarding a deadline. That is an extraordinary approach to negotiations. Does the Minister really believe that to achieve the best outcome from negotiations we should announce in advance that we have no position—that we have not made mind up our mind about what we want?
	On the regionalisation of fisheries policy, will the Minister explain what practical differences will be made to the common fisheries policy that will represent an improvement on the previous one? The big disappointment is the potentially devastating delay until 2020 of a commitment to reach sustainable levels of fishing stock, which will mean another eight years of guaranteed overfishing. Tragically, once again politics has trumped science. Does the Minister agree that a failure to rebuild fish stocks more quickly will damage the UK fishing industry, particularly inshore fleets at the low-impact, sustainable end of the industry?
	Finally, what measures will the Government put in place to make sure that smaller inshore fishermen and their communities receive a fairer distribution of quotas? The House will give the Minister one cheer for his efforts this week, but the future of our fishing industry and the recovery of our fish stocks are too important to sacrifice to yet another Euro-fudge.

Richard Benyon: Let me start by formally welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his position. I look forward to working with him in the coming months on these important issues. He asked about the dates in terms of a discard ban. I should state quite clearly that when I was asked by The Guardian on Monday morning whether I would share the dates I was taking to the negotiations, I had very clear dates in my head, but we have a protocol—a courtesy—that we agree the UK line with all devolved Governments. I was very grateful to have the support of all the devolved Governments in Luxembourg. We had a very good spirit in the UK delegation room—we work well together. We agreed that UK line very clearly and we stuck to it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was a vote in the plenary meeting of the Council of Ministers. At the end, the Danish presidency, which has been superb throughout—it is a great ally of the British programme, and has led very well—asked people to register any opposition to the proposal. One or two small countries did so, and one or two slightly large countries did so too. We should be under no illusion: there are people who do not want the policy to be reformed, and do not support the United Kingdom’s ambitions on discards, regionalisation and moving to sustainable fisheries. It is up to our colleagues from all parties in the European Parliament to make sure that a robust position is maintained and that the Council of Ministers continues to push on the deadlines that we have asked for.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what the measure means for a regionalised approach. I am really pleased that the United Kingdom position has been adopted, and we pushed right through to the end to make sure that if a group of countries fishing in a sea basin decides on the details of measures that are currently decided in the Commission but which will in future be decided in those regionalised groups, the Commission can then implement that. In the original text, there was a clear indication that other measures could be imposed by the Commission in that process. We want to make sure that where countries agree, we have a truly regionalised position—a truly bottom-up system of managing our fisheries—and I think that will be welcomed.
	The hon. Gentleman is wrong about our dates on maximum sustainable yield. We want to stick to our Johannesburg commitment, which was a political commitment, and make it a legal commitment so that we fish to MSY by 2015 where possible. He accepts that the science is not always clear, but we want to hold ourselves to account as much as possible. He asks about a fairer distribution among different sectors of the industry. He knows—if he does not, he should—that I have been working extremely hard on this. I want to make sure that we keep all those small ports and creeks that support the local fishing industry in business. There is a social dimension to the management of the industry. We have to maintain the diversity of the fleet, which is not easy, but it is a clear priority for the Government. I hope that he, like his predecessors, will continue to support that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate colleagues, I need short questions and short answers.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has delivered and the progress that was made, particularly on regionalisation, which is music to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s ears. Will he update the House on the question of a register for UK fishermen so that we can tackle the problem of slipper skippers, which will also help with discards? Will he confirm that it will be fish caught against quota on which we will proceed, not just fish landed, as that is one of the main issues with discards? Will he confirm that there will be support for fishermen to invest in the selective gear that has been successful in Denmark and Sweden?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. It is a priority quickly to overcome the absurd position that we do not know who holds quota in this country. We want to work with devolved Governments to make sure that we have that register as quickly possible to ensure that we know and perhaps to slay some of the urban myths that football clubs and celebrities own quota. I have never managed to find out the facts about this.
	The important point on discards is that we know how to make this work. We begin with a really good experience of working with the fishing industry. Catch quota schemes will result in 0.2% of discards of cod for vessels in those schemes. We want to incentivise fishermen not to catch fish that they would otherwise discard. We want to make sure, too, that where there is a land-all obligation there are supply chains that ensure that those fish are eaten or go into other systems. We should not just transfer a problem out at sea to landfill. The most important thing is that we have time and a clear direction to ensure that we can use all the work that we have done with the industry to make this effective and to stop the problem in a practical sense.

Frank Doran: It is important to welcome the progress that has been made in the Fisheries Council and congratulate the Minister on the effort he has put in, but does he agree that the discards situation is complex, particularly in the mixed and white fisheries in the North sea—the situation is much easier to resolve in pelagic fisheries—and that we will not resolve the problem through European rules? We need practical regional measures, as has been shown in the Scottish prawn fisheries, where these practical approaches have managed to reduce discards by over 70%.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree that there are fantastic practices in British waters that we want to see as part of the scheme and that it is not just a question of having a big-bang end to the practice. We want to use existing evidence and to work with the industry. I know that we can achieve that and look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman’s all-party parliamentary group on that.

Tony Baldry: As a former Fisheries Minister, I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has achieved. People have been trying for decades to get the
	sorts of reforms he has achieved, and had it not been for his leadership and that of the UK Government we would not have got where we are. The issue of discards is of considerable interest to large numbers of my constituents, many of whom have written to me about it. It is quite a complex matter, so will my hon. Friend consider sending a “Dear colleague” letter about discards to all Members of the House so that we can forward it to our constituents?

Richard Benyon: I am very keen to involve all Members of the House. My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that is almost as far from the sea as it is possible to be, but we get letters from constituents who are massively concerned about the marine environment. I want to ensure that we keep up the political momentum on this and so want to work with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that we keep up the pressure and are effective through all the institutions that are involved so that ultimately we get the result we need.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Minister will recall that I have called a number of times for the abolition of the common fisheries policy and the restoration of historic fishing waters to member states. I still believe that that is the only final solution that will work, but in the short term we have inched forward. Will he explain how the system will be policed, whether there will be penalties, precisely what will happen to the excess catches and whether Britain will be monitoring, and indeed policing, rogue vessels from overseas that are fishing in British waters?

Richard Benyon: Britain has been policing illegal fishing, whether by UK or foreign vessels, and will continue to do so. I am pleased that we recently instigated a very heavy fine on an overseas vessel fishing in our waters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to ensure that fisheries are managed as close to member states as possible. There are some good words in the text that allow member states to take action when it is right for them to do so. Subsidiarity is supposed to underpin a lot of European legislation, and I ask him to look at the provisions we secured on regionalisation. Whether or not we had a CFP, we would still have to work with other countries because we are talking about an ecosystem, fish that swim in our waters and those of other countries, and the historical fishing rights that go way back beyond the European Union, so I think we have a good message and that it is something he can be pleased with.

Andrew George: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has helped to secure in the negotiations. Does he agree that if the regional dimension of the common fisheries policy is to succeed it is critical that fishermen are engaged as key stakeholders in the management of those regions?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. For too long fishermen have felt right at the bottom of the decision-making process, under layer upon layer of control. I hope that we can have a system that is simpler and closer to them. In December I sat up late into the night discussing with Commission officials where an eliminator panel should sit in a net that was to be used off the Shetlands. That
	is an absurd system. I hope that a more regionalised approach will mean that decisions are taken by fishermen and closer to where they fish.

Kevin Brennan: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) back to his rightful place on the Front Bench. The Minister said that he wanted particular dates for the implementation of the policy against these immoral discards. Did he achieve the dates he had in mind in the negotiations?

Richard Benyon: No, but I failed to achieve them only by about a year. We can argue and quibble, but the important thing is that we agreed a general approach. Had we not done so, we would have becalmed the whole reform of this broken policy, possibly for years, and sent a message to the European Parliament that the Council does not really think it is important, and those who believe the current system works would have won, which would have been a disaster.

Sheryll Murray: As someone who sat up into the early hours of the morning listening to the negotiations, I really congratulate the Minister. Can he confirm that any discard ban will not prevent fishermen from Looe, Polperro and the Rame peninsula in my constituency discarding seasonally prevalent fish, such as the red gurnard, that are not assessed as under pressure by the Marine Conservation Society?

Richard Benyon: I thank my hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about these issues. I do not know the details stock by stock, but what we want is an end to discards. There were proposals made in the negotiation process that, through de minimis levels that we considered much too high, would in effect have meant that there was not a discard ban. We must be clear about where we want to go, but we want to ensure that we work with fishermen in her constituency and elsewhere to achieve that.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. With Diane Dodds, a colleague and Member of the European Parliament, I have been working on this issue for some time and therefore give it a cautious welcome. Does he accept that, in the spirit of the agreement, further effort, known as reductions, in the context of the cod recovery plan for the Irish sea, which affects Northern Ireland fishermen, will not be imposed in future?

Richard Benyon: One of the reforms we want as part of the process is a greater movement to multi-annual plans, which I like because they actually take power away from politicians. The horse trading that goes on in December is less possible when we have a good multi-annual plan. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is a bad multi-annual plan, one that was not thought through properly, does not work and in many cases achieves the reverse of what was intended. I will work with him, Diane Dodds and anyone else to ensure that we get the right kind of multi-annual plans system within the reforms.

Neil Parish: I, too, congratulate the Minister, who has achieved a great deal on discards in his time in office. I think that the local management of fisheries and fishermen owning up to the way fish stocks are managed are essential. We have to ensure that cod discards, which are still going on in mixed fisheries off the south-west, are stopped as soon as possible.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a hearty proponent of an end to the top-down management of fisheries and an enemy of discards both here and in the European Parliament, and I will continue to work on that. We should be very grateful to organisations such as Fish Fight for the part they played in exciting popular culture in support of what we are doing, but it is also worth paying tribute to the small groups of scientists, officials from DEFRA and other organisations that have been working to end discards and reform this policy for a long time.

Stephen Mosley: I give three cheers for this agreement, which represents a huge step in the right direction. However, given that some European countries, most notably France, remain opposed to some of its key elements, will the Minister ensure that he keeps up the pressure so that there is no slippage in the proposals?

Richard Benyon: I was pleased to welcome the new French Minister to the negotiations and very glad that I did not have to do what he did: ring his Prime Minister at 4.30 in the morning to get his authority to support the proposals. I can assure my hon. Friend that we work with every country that we feel can move this forward. It is really important that we do not just sit back because we have a general approach agreed; there is a lot more work to be done. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s his support.

Andrea Leadsom: How miserable of the Opposition to refuse to applaud the remarkable progress made by my hon. Friend in an area of EU policy that has been calling out for reform for literally decades. Will he please tell us what the process is now for this to receive approval from the European Parliament and what his concerns about that might be?

Richard Benyon: We now enter a process of Kafkaesque complexity. The reforms will go to the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee in October, and we will then consider what it thinks of them. They will then go to the plenary session of the European Parliament. They will then be examined again by the institutions early next year through a trialogue process. We will then come forward with a reform, hopefully about this time next year, for implementation in January, which is in 18 months’ time.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and colleagues.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for next week will include:
	Monday 18 June—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 1).
	Tuesday 19 June—Debate on a motion relating to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, followed by debate on a motion relating to financial services market abuse.
	Wednesday 20 June—Opposition day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on disability benefits and social care, followed by a further debate on a subject to be announced. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 21 June—Motion relating to the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, followed by a motion relating to the mis-selling of interest rate swap products to small businesses. The subjects of these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 9.30am on this day.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 25 June will include:
	Monday 25 June—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 2).
	Tuesday 26 June—Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 27 June—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 3).
	Thursday 28 June—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 June will be a debate on social mobility.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. We are all particularly looking forward to the visit next Thursday of Aung San Suu Kyi, which is the cause of the change in the start time.
	This week the part-time Chancellor has been whingeing to a group of business leaders because they have not been publicly defending his decision to cut taxes for the richest 1%. This, in a week when we learn that FTSE 100 bosses have awarded themselves an extremely generous pay rise of 12% on average, with one in four pocketing staggering pay rises of 40% or more.
	How do the Government respond? On Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill on Monday, the Business Secretary announced that he is to water down proposals, which were already inadequate, to give shareholders binding votes on executive pay. Instead of encouraging business leaders to lobby for an even bigger
	deal for the richest 1%, does the Leader of the House not think that the Chancellor should clamp down on unwarranted and exorbitant rewards for those at the very top?
	With the Chancellor disgracefully ducking his own statement on banking reform later today, how are we ever going to get him into this Chamber to explain what has happened to his abandoned slogan: “We’re all in this together”? We have also had an independent report this week on child poverty, which states that the previous, Labour Government cut child poverty at a pace and scale unmatched in any other industrial country. It reveals that measures that Labour introduced in government stopped almost 1 million children growing up in poverty, and it states also that measures introduced by this Government were both “unfair” and “short-sighted”.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies expects the number of children growing up in poverty to increase by 600,000 over the next two years, but the Government’s response is to try to redefine poverty, not to deal with the problem. There we have it: a Government who cut taxes for the richest and make the poor poorer while trying to cover it up. Will the Leader of the House finally find time for a debate on fairness? The Chancellor in his Budget made the wrong decision, and he also chose the wrong economic strategy. Britain is in a double-dip recession made in Downing street. Next week the G20 is meeting in Mexico, and this is an opportunity for the Government finally to come up with a plan B, but I fear that Ministers will have trouble even making it to the G20 given that they are constantly U-turning. A holding pattern over Heathrow seems like a more realistic ministerial destination than Mexico.
	The Chancellor made good use of the recess to perform mass U-turns on his omnishambles of a Budget, and I now understand why there are so many recesses at the moment: the Government have built time into the parliamentary calendar to allow Ministers to slip out all their U-turns when the House is not sitting. Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should have the guts to come to the House to announce their U-turns?
	House building is down, homelessness is up, rough sleeping is up and young people find it impossible to get on the housing ladder. What is the response of the Minister for Housing and Local Government? He spends his time spinning figures that are palpable nonsense. In what parallel universe can the Minister for Housing and Local Government describe a year-on-year drop of 68% in the number of affordable housing starts as an “impressive” and “dramatic” increase? He claimed that there was a “net loss” of 45,000 homes between 1997 and 2010, before deciding that that figure was not sufficiently dramatic and press-releasing that we ended up with 200,000 fewer homes.
	In fact, the Government’s own statistics show that by May 2010, when compared with May 1997, there were an additional 2 million homes in England. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement explaining the antics of the Housing Minister as well as his flawed understanding of simple mathematics?
	The pay of FTSE 100 bosses is spiralling out of control, the number of children growing up in poverty is increasing, house building is down and homelessness is up. What we need from the Prime Minister and this
	Government are less PR and more delivery. To date, it is a pretty sorry record from an out-of-touch and incompetent Government.

George Young: I begin on a consensual note and agree with what the hon. Lady said about next Thursday, when we welcome Aung San Suu Kyi in Westminster Hall.
	“Part-time Chancellor”, the hon. Lady says, which is all very well coming from a shadow Leader of the House who a few weeks ago assumed new responsibilities for heading up her party’s policy unit. I hope that she is not going to be a part-time shadow Leader of the House.
	On executive pay, the previous Government had 13 years but did absolutely nothing about it. Since January we have been consulting on the most comprehensive reform of governance on directors’ pay, and greater transparency on what executives are paid; strengthening shareholder rights by legislating so that they can hold companies to account; and calling on responsible business and investors to promote good practice. We will announce the final package shortly and do in two-and-a-half years something that Labour wholly failed to do in 13.
	On child poverty, the previous Government’s target was to halve it by 2010. They failed. Although relative child poverty numbers fell over the past year, children were no better off in real terms, as it was largely due to a reduction in median incomes. Absolute poverty also did not change, so there are some perverse incentives in the current system, given that, perversely, in a recession it seems that poverty statistics are getting better. That is why we are consulting on a better range for measuring child poverty, something that looks at the causes as well as the monetary measures. In a report it will be announced that the Government intend to consult in the autumn on new, better measurements of child poverty, and when we introduce universal credits that will lift hundreds of thousands of children and families out of poverty.
	The hon. Lady asks for a debate about fairness. I have announced a number of Opposition days, so she is perfectly welcome to choose fairness as the subject of one of them. Indeed, she might have chosen fairness for the debate yesterday; it would have been far better than the one that we had.
	As for the sittings of the House, we are now sitting in September, which we did not do at all during the previous Parliament, and sitting like-for-like for more days than the previous Parliament.
	As for housing, under the previous Government house building starts fell to the lowest level in peacetime since the 1920s. The hon. Lady asked what we were planning to do. We have plans for 170,000 affordable homes during the current spending review. We have reformed the planning system and we are making more public land available to house builders. We are taking a range of steps to assist the housing market.
	Apparently, we do not deal with our problems in the same way as the Opposition. This morning we discovered an interesting new technique for establishing party discipline from a prominent Labour blogger in the New Statesman, who wrote: “Challenge Labour and you’ll find a horse’s head on your pillow”. It is no wonder that one insider was quoted as saying:
	“We’re all being terribly positive at the moment.”

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement on banking reform to follow, and then a very heavily subscribed debate on mental health under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible, but if I am to do so I require short questions and short answers.

Julian Lewis: At this time of year, local groups such as New Forest’s Normandy Veterans Association commemorate the greatest amphibious invasion in history. In two years’ time, it will be the 70th anniversary of that invasion. May we have a statement from a Defence Minister indicating whether there will be Government support for the surviving veterans to revisit the beaches in 2014 for the 70th anniversary commemorations?

George Young: Let me begin by commending the fortitude and bravery of those veterans who, 70 years ago, landed on the beaches of Normandy. At this stage, planning for 2014 is in its incipience, but we will mark this important anniversary. The Ministry of Defence plans to work closely with the Normandy Veterans Association, and once planning gets under way, we will discuss with it some key issues, particularly what support we will be able to give to those who want to go to Normandy in person to take part in the commemorative service.

Meg Hillier: There has recently been much discussion about proposals to change the regulation of child care. Many child minders, child carers and parents in my constituency have approached me with real concerns about what this could mean for quality. Do the Government have any plans to pursue this agenda? Whether or not that is the case, will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on this, because I am sure that many other hon. Members would like to raise their constituents’ concerns about the implications of such action?

George Young: There will be an opportunity on Monday for the hon. Lady to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who has responsibility for this. If she is unable to do that, for whatever reason, I will make inquiries of my right hon. Friend to see whether we plan any changes along the lines that she suggests. We want to drive up the quality of child care, be it provided by child minders, day nurseries, or other settings in which early years assistance is given to young children.

Henry Smith: Last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met his Mauritian counterpart, when I understand that the future of the British Indian ocean territory was discussed. May we have a debate on the importance of the right of self-determination of the Chagos Islanders in deciding the future sovereignty of their islands rather than having those decisions made in London, Port Louis or Washington?

George Young: I understand the strength of feeling on the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I sat next to the ambassador for Mauritius at a recent dinner, where we
	discussed this. Foreign Office questions on Tuesday may provide a forum in which he can pursue these issues in greater detail.

Helen Goodman: Yesterday the Leader of the House told us that he thought the priorities for this Chamber should be the eurozone and Syria. This morning, two Secretaries of State made key announcements—one on the definition of poverty and the other on snooping. Yet three out of the four days of Government business that the Leader of the House has announced are on electoral registration. Why?

George Young: The time that the Government have in the House is for their legislative programme. That is why we are spending time on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and why we had the Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill on Monday. I was referring yesterday to Opposition days, when the Opposition can choose the subject. I suggested that instead of choosing the subject they chose yesterday, they could have chosen the eurozone or some other subject. I am delighted to see that they have chosen a serious subject for next week’s debate, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will engage in that. It is for the Opposition to choose subjects on which to hold Ministers to account; Government time is available for Government Bills.

Bob Russell: The summer of 2014 will mark the centenary of the start of the great war. In view of the Leader of the House’s earlier answer, may we have a debate so that the whole House can discuss how we can join in to commemorate the great war?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. He will know that the Backbench Business Committee is the forum for bidding for such debates. I can only suggest that he presents himself to the newly established Backbench Business Committee and puts forward his proposal, which I am sure will have a lot of support on both sides of the House.

Dave Watts: Following the unacceptable comments made by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), may we have a debate on the snobbishness and elitism that are demonstrated on the Government Front Bench and were clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister yesterday?

George Young: I am not sure that any discourtesy was extended by my right hon. Friend. Speaking from memory, I think he called the hon. Gentleman a poet; I am not sure that that is a form of abuse.

Jason McCartney: My right hon. Friend, like me, is a keen cyclist. May we have a debate on the benefits of bringing the Tour de France to Yorkshire in 2016, for which a bid has gone in that has been supported by Welcome to Yorkshire, the county’s tourism body? I am particularly looking forward to one of the legs being held at Holme Moss in my constituency.

George Young: I bicycled to work, as did my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.
	On Tuesday, I saw a picture in the paper of my hon. Friend taking part in Bike to Work day, and I am sorry that he got as wet as he obviously did. As regards the Tour de France, I encourage Yorkshire to engage with the umbrella body, UK Sport, which would take the bid forward. In respect of the UK as a whole, I think that Scotland has put in a bid for the subsequent year. It is important that Yorkshire puts its bid through the appropriate sporting organisation.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we might next be able to debate the benefit cap in Government time? Rent levels in London mean that that policy will have disproportionate effects on many families, and particularly children. Jobcentre Plus tells me that it has written to 900 families in my constituency saying that their benefits are to be cut by an average of £200. This could lead to many thousands of children having to leave their homes in inner London. Mayor Boris Johnson has said that he is opposed to it. Will the Government give us some time to debate it?

George Young: This issue was debated substantially when the appropriate Bill went through the House. My understanding was that Labour supports a cap on benefits in principle. In response to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that this will be helpful—a substantial amount of money is available in a transitional fund designed precisely to stop families having to move house at short notice. I hope that his local authority, Tower Hamlets, can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for the relevant funds in order to avoid any unnecessary hardship such as that which he has implied.

Nadhim Zahawi: The car manufacturing industry is delivering some outstanding results. On top of Bentley, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover announcing 3,500 jobs, Aston Martin in Gaydon has announced 150 jobs in bringing back a model to be manufactured in the UK. May we have a debate about how we can support that industry and the supply chain around it?

George Young: I am sure that all Members of the House will have heard with sadness of the death of my hon. Friend’s predecessor as Member for Stratford, John Maples, who died over the weekend. We send our condolences to Jane and his children. I hope that the contribution that he made to politics encouraged my party to encourage a broader range of candidates to come forward for selection. I am sure that that helped enormously at the last election.
	My hon. Friend may have seen some figures that came out this morning indicating a very substantial increase in car manufacturing output, which is one of our success stories. I was delighted to hear of the investment and jobs in the area that he represents. Car manufacturing in the UK grew by 5.8% in 2011. We are clearly very competitive in world markets.

Keith Vaz: As the Leader of the House knows, the Home Secretary published her draft Communications Bill today. May we have a statement
	on the way in which Government Departments, and particularly the Home Office, communicate with Committees of this House? I have been waiting for five weeks for a response from the Home Secretary on a number of very important questions. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with her, or may we have a statement on the matter of providing timely replies?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her team do their best to respond promptly to questions from the right hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. I understand that there is a high volume of correspondence between the Home Department and his Committee, and that, on occasions, responses are sought within very short deadlines. None the less, we will try to raise our game and give the right hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee the quality of service to which they are entitled.

Peter Bone: Gallay Ltd is a successful manufacturing company in my constituency. In February this year, it applied for a licence to export 88 specialised air conditioning units to a previously approved company. Unfortunately, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has still not approved the export licence, and the company is likely to lose the order to an American company. May we have a statement next week on why BIS is acting in this manner?

George Young: I commend what Gallay has been doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in winning exports for air conditioning equipment in a very competitive market. I understand that the order to which he refers involves Egypt, where the internal security situation is giving rise for concern. I will ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and BIS process the application for a licence as quickly as they can, consistent with their obligation to ensure that such equipment is not put to the wrong use.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that, for at least 200 years, local newspapers have provided a vital communication link between those elected to this House and our constituents. In today’s Culture, Media and Sport questions, I was disappointed by the complacency of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) in his response to two questions on the subject. Papers such as The Huddersfield Daily Examiner are crucial to the democratic process, yet many of them are under threat. This month, for example, the Halifax Courier changed to weekly and online publication only. This decline in our local newspapers represents a real threat to our democratic process.

George Young: I am sure that every hon. Member would agree about the importance of his or her local newspaper. The Andover Advertiser is certainly an important publication. I am sure that there was no complacency at all in the reply from the Minister who replied to those questions a few minutes ago, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there are trends throughout the country—and, indeed, throughout the world—that are making local newspapers less viable. I will get back to my hon. Friend and see whether there are any further steps that we can take, but hon. Members can also play their own part in making local newspapers readworthy by writing columns in them that make compelling reading.

Marcus Jones: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen since the general election to 5.4%. Despite that good news, however, it is still far too high. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are trying to help the situation by holding a local job fair on 28 June. Will my right hon. Friend welcome that initiative, and the similar work that Conservative Members are doing across the country? Will he also grant a debate in Government time on getting unemployed people back into work?

George Young: I am delighted to hear about the job fair in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that many hon. Members have helped to set up job clubs in their constituencies—[Hon. Members: “Of all parties.”] Of all parties. They have given support in that way, and I pay tribute to the work that job clubs do in raising morale, enabling networking and finding suitable jobs for their members. I cannot promise an early debate on employment, but there might be an opportunity in some of the debates chosen by the Opposition or the Backbench Business Committee in the days to come to talk about the important subject of unemployment and the steps that the Government are taking to reduce it.

Diana Johnson: Later this month, it will be the fifth anniversary of the devastating floods in Hull in 2007. Given the uncertainty over the statement of principles, and over the Government’s plans to provide reasonable house insurance for my constituents and others around the country, please may we have a debate in Government time on what they are going to do to protect householders?

George Young: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I know that there has been a dialogue between Ministers and the Association of British Insurers to ensure that adequate household insurance is available to those who live on flood plains. I will ask the appropriate Minister—I think that it will be a Treasury Minister—to write to the hon. Lady to bring her up to date with the discussions that are taking place, which I think are related in some way to the investment that the Government are making in flood protection measures in the areas concerned.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Coryton oil refinery in my constituency has failed to find a buyer yet. May we therefore have an urgent debate on the importance of the refining industry to the UK economy? During that debate, may we explore what further support the Government could give to the industry, and the possibility of offering it some form of financial assistance —as we did to the banks—so that Coryton can remain open?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the plans to close the Coryton oil refinery. It is disappointing that, so far, an alternative buyer has not been found. I understand that inquiries are still being made by the administrators, who are looking at a range of options for the future of the facility. I am not sure that keeping the refinery open indefinitely at public expense would be the best use of resources, but we are working with Thurrock council’s taskforce, which was set up in the light of the announcement, and I will ensure that my ministerial
	colleague at the Department of Energy and Climate Change does all that he can to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Of course I understand the concern of those who are losing their jobs.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the activities of the so-called private benefit check firms? Those companies operate on a no win, no fee basis, and they advise people on how best to claim welfare benefits. They can, however, subsequently claim up to 50% of the benefits back from the most vulnerable people in our society. The Leader of the House will be aware that the citizens advice bureaux already carry out that excellent work, and it would be helpful if the Government could promote the work that the CABs are doing in that area.

George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Atos, the company that does the medical assessments to find out whether someone is entitled to benefit. There is of course an appeal against the initial decision in those cases. I think I am right in saying that Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions have asked for an independent review of the whole assessment process and, so far, they have implemented the recommendations of that review. I will make inquiries of the DWP to see what further steps are being taken to ensure that benefit claimants who are entitled to benefit get the appropriate support.

Greg Mulholland: May we have an urgent debate on the situation facing British citizens in the Greek justice system, and on the inadequate support they receive from Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff? My constituent, Fran Prenga, is currently languishing in custody in Greece—having apparently not even been interviewed, never mind charged—in conditions that appear to fall below EU acceptable standards. May we have a statement from a Minister and a debate on this matter?

George Young: First, I might have misunderstood the question from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). If I did, and if I got the organisation wrong, I will write to him.
	I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about Greece. I also have a constituent who is tied up with the Greek judicial system. I know that the FCO often does all that it can to help, but the Greek judicial system is somewhat obscure and difficult to penetrate, and one often needs to employ a local interpreter. There will be questions to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, and my hon. Friend might have an opportunity to raise this matter again at that time. I will warn FCO Ministers that he is on the case.

John Cryer: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 196, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)?
	[That this House is greatly concerned by the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 May 2012 on the future of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) and the 
	 proposal to reduce the scope of the authority as well as change the licensing agreements from six months to two years with no inspections on application for a licence; understands that the GLA is a Government body which is fully supported by employers including Marks and Spencer; recognises the invaluable work which is carried out by its officers and staff to ensure the safety of workers across the UK; further notes that the GLA was established after the cockle-pickers tragedy which occurred in Morecambe Bay in 2004, yet understands that the Government plans to remove this area of regulation from the remit of the GLA; asks the Government to recognise that any cut to the remit of the GLA will have entirely negative consequences; and calls on the Government to rethink its proposals which will put vulnerable workers at serious risk of exploitation, injury and death.]
	The motion refers to a written statement sneaked out on 24 May, just before the recess, which heralds cuts to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The House will remember that the GLA was introduced after the tragedy involving the Morecambe bay cockle pickers. The cuts will result in an increased rate of death and injury in certain industries. Surely that merits a statement or even a debate.

George Young: I cannot promise an early debate. I have now seen the early-day motion, to which seven hon. Members have appended their names. I will write to the appropriate Minister and get a response to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I am sure that the last thing the Government want to do is to
	“put vulnerable workers at serious risk of exploitation, injury and death”,
	as the motion suggests.

Karen Bradley: The majority of employment in my constituency is provided by small businesses. I am contacted regularly by such businesses that have concerns about what support they might receive from the Government and other agencies. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the support that is available to small businesses to reassure them and their employees that there is a great future ahead, and that they can grow and help us out of the recession?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Government want to support small and medium-sized enterprises. As she will know, a range of measures has been introduced to promote apprenticeships and encourage bank lending. I would welcome a debate on the matter, but cannot promise one in the immediate future. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is currently in Committee. I am not sure whether she is a member of that Committee, but that would be an opportunity to take the matter further.

Paul Flynn: The Public Administration Committee, with its Conservative majority, decided unanimously that Sir Alex Allan was not a fit person to be the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. His collaboration yesterday with a political stunt robbed him of any claim to be independent. When can the House look at why the previous holder of the office resigned, and how the office—a very good reform—has been degraded and politicised by Sir Alex Allan?

George Young: I reject the hon. Gentleman’s description of Sir Alex Allan. The Committee on which the hon. Gentleman sat in the last Parliament, on which there was an in-built Labour majority, produced the same recommendation about an independent adviser, and the last Government rejected it. A similar recommendation was made in the report that was published in March, to which the Government will respond in due course.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have genuine concerns about the way in which the BBC covered the jubilee celebrations, the sky-rocket salaries of senior executives at the BBC, the bias of the BBC and the licence fee of £145.50. When can we have a debate on the sustainability of this out-of-date and bloated organisation?

George Young: The BBC is an independent body and is answerable for how it covers events such as the jubilee and the pageant. I understand what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that the House would welcome a debate on the BBC. I can only suggest that he presents himself at 1 o’clock on a Tuesday to the Backbench Business Committee to solicit a debate on the BBC. I am sure that he would be supported by Members from both sides of the House.

Jonathan Ashworth: A few moments ago, when the Leader of the House cantered through his statistics on child poverty, he accidentally forgot to report to the House that today’s figures show that the last Labour Government lifted more than 1 million children out of poverty. Given that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is today talking about shifting the goalposts—a change from the position that the Prime Minister took in opposition—and that much academic research expresses concern about levels of child poverty in the future, can we have an urgent debate on child poverty in this House?

George Young: Of course we can, if his party chooses it as the subject for an Opposition day. I have announced two Opposition days for the next two weeks. The subject has not been announced for the second half of the debate next week. I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s request, which would have been better directed to her than to me. The Government are anxious to see whether there is a better way of measuring child poverty than the way we have at the moment, which has a number of perverse consequences, one of which is that in a recession child poverty rates appear to improve because they are measured in relation to median incomes.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will the Leader of the House allow us a debate in Government time on stillbirth certification? I have been after a Westminster Hall debate on this subject for some time. Such a certificate would help parents who have a stillbirth to come to terms with the death of their child, and give recognition to the fact that the birth has taken place. Following a previous question in business questions, the Leader of the House kindly got a letter sent to me from the Department of Health. It seems that the only reason we maintain the current system of stillbirth certification is to help the Department of Health and other Departments in the collection of statistics.

George Young: I understand the concerns of those who have lost a child in the tragic circumstances that my hon. Friend has described. I will certainly pursue with the Department of Health whether a certificate can be issued in such circumstances. I will ask the Secretary of State to respond to my hon. Friend as sympathetically as he can.

Kevin Brennan: The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, the Welsh cavalry, are in Westminster today lobbying about the future of their regiment because of the concern that the Government will cut it. May we have a debate on the future of the Welsh regiments, with particular reference to the undermining of support for the Union that any further weakening of them would engender?

George Young: I was at Defence questions on Monday, where the future of the regiments was raised. Speaking from memory, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that work was still under way on the appropriate configuration. There is a Westminster Hall debate on Armed Forces day next Tuesday, which may be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter when a Defence Minister will be responding.

Alun Cairns: The previous Government left Wales as the only nation in the UK without a single mile of electrified railway. Many Government Members are lobbying the Secretary of State for Transport about the electrification of the railways. May we have a statement on the matter to find out her latest thinking?

George Young: If I remember rightly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the electrification of the Great Western line to Cardiff. I am sure that that has been well received in Wales. There will be an opportunity the next time we have Transport questions to press the Government on their plans to invest further in the railways in Wales. Alternatively, my hon. Friend could seek a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment of the House.

Nicholas Dakin: May we have a statement on the performance of the Child Support Agency, and in particular on the effectiveness of its support for the children of absent parents who are self-employed?

George Young: There will be an opportunity to put question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday week. We all know from our advice bureau that the CSA is raised with us as a regular issue. If there is a particular instance that concerns the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that he writes to the Secretary of State to see whether he can usefully intervene and put matters right.

Gavin Barwell: Some small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency still report difficulties in accessing finance. Although I welcome the Government’s national loan guarantee scheme and the business finance partnership, may we have a debate
	on what else can be done to ensure that companies can access the working capital that they need to drive growth and create jobs?

George Young: The Government have introduced a range of initiatives, including the StartUp Loans scheme and the GrowthAccelerator programme. The £82.5 million StartUp Loans scheme is aimed at younger people who want to set up their own businesses. The £200 million GrowthAccelerator programme is for 26,000 of England’s most ambitious small businesses, some of which I am sure are located in Croydon.

Jim Shannon: Recently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned a report from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust on banning lead shot for wildfowlers and on wildfowling shooting grounds. That has caused consternation among members of the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate in the House on that matter?

George Young: I cannot promise an early debate, but it is an issue that the hon. Gentleman might raise on the Adjournment of the House or in Westminster Hall. I am sure that Members from both sides of the House would be interested in taking the matter further.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 167, which campaigns for Rachel’s law?
	[That this House deeply regrets the fact that Mrs Annette Courtney, a mother from Harlow, has had to sell her family home to enable her daughter to live independently; notes that her daughter Rachel is 20 and has cerebral palsy and high functioning autism, but that she has achieved five GCSEs and is on target to gain a BTEC Level 3 in IT and an AS level in business studies; further notes that Mrs Courtney has recently said that “Social Services have been involved in our lives for the last two and a half years and we have been completely disempowered by the system… Having stated that Rachel wishes to leave home when she leaves residential college and having experienced life away from home for the last two years, no accommodation has been found to rent. Every avenue that I have explored has been closed down and I am now in the process of selling my home to buy her a flat which will leave me homeless”; concludes that Rachel is one of thousands of young adults with disabilities who are sent home with no opportunity to develop their skills, or enter the workplace; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for Rachel’s Law, so that all post-19-year olds with a disability, or disabilities, should they choose to leave home, would have adapted accommodation available to them to rent.]
	Annette Courtney from my constituency of Harlow has had to sell her home to raise funds to ensure that her adult daughter, who has special needs, gets suitable accommodation. May we have a debate on a level playing field for young people with special needs?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. My understanding is that the disabled facilities grant is aimed specifically at families such as the one
	that he has mentioned to enable them to stay in their own home. In the last spending review, we sought to ring-fence the DFG money so that the resources were available to ensure that people did not have to move home if their existing home could not cope with a particular disability. I will make inquiries with the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether there is any action that we can take to help his constituents.

Jeremy Lefroy: Constituents of mine have been through the considerable distressed of seeing their son’s killer in an area from which he was excluded by bail conditions, yet he was not returned to prison. May we have a debate on the rights of victims in those circumstances?

George Young: It sounds as though it was a matter for the court in the first instance, when it discovered that the bail conditions had been broken, to return the offender to jail. However, I understand the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I will raise the circumstances that he mentions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary to see whether any action ought to be taken to ensure that bail conditions are properly enforced.

James Morris: The number of new apprenticeship starts has doubled in my constituency in the past two years, and I recently launched an apprenticeship challenge specifically to encourage small local firms to take on an apprentice for the first time. May we have a debate about how we can encourage small firms to take on apprentices, so that we get the skilled and flexible work force that we need?

George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend has done, and more MPs could do the same and remind local employers of the resources that are available if they take on an apprentice. Some £1,500 is available towards the cost of doing so, and we have just made available resources that will support up to 40,000 new apprenticeships. I would welcome such a debate, but I fear that I cannot promise one in Government time in the immediate future.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a statement on security at the Palace of Westminster? Following the theft of two laptops from my locked office in Norman Shaw North during the jubilee recess, I have learned that there have been 39 such thefts in the Palace of Westminster over the past 12 months. Such a statement or debate would enable colleagues to learn about best practice in securing their valuable items.

George Young: I very much regret the theft from my hon. Friend of two laptops, which, as she said, were in a locked room. I have had a discussion with the Serjeant at Arms about this matter, and he takes it extremely seriously and is following it up. My hon. Friend reminds us, and indeed our staff, that we should take whatever precautions we can to ensure that we do not leave valuable equipment in unlocked rooms, to reduce the temptation towards such thefts.

Mr Speaker: I call Christopher Pincher.

Christopher Pincher: Thank you for recognising me, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring not to an achievement on the part of my eyesight as such but to the fact that his own appearance has changed notably from that of earlier days. I say that for the edification of people who might be attending to our proceedings. We look forward to hearing him.

Christopher Pincher: All our appearances have changed since earlier days, Mr Speaker, as you and I well know.
	Youth unemployment in Tamworth has fallen to a 12-month low, thanks in part to further investment in Jaguar Land Rover and in BMW in Hams Hall. May we have a debate on the steps that the Government are taking and will take to reduce business taxation and regulation further, so that businesses can expand and create more jobs?

George Young: My hon. Friend’s beard has been enormously welcomed by the Deputy Leader of the House. In a week or two, he may even be able to match the hirsute nature of the Deputy Leader of the House’s face.
	My hon. Friend is right that the investment by Jaguar Land Rover and BMW has had an enormous impact. On what more the Government can do, on Monday we had Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which contains a number of measures to overhaul employment tribunals and create a more enterprise-friendly society. The Government are on the case.

Glyn Davies: Last week, Trax JH Ltd, a motor components manufacturer in my constituency, announced a £4 million order from Renault, which safeguarded 50 jobs in the constituency. That was a hugely important announcement. Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for us to discuss the importance of the close, pragmatic working relationship between the United Kingdom Government, the devolved Governments and the providers of finance, which underpinned the announcement?

George Young: I very much hope that the firm in my hon. Friend’s constituency has the resources that it needs to deliver the order that it has just won. We have close dialogue with Welsh Assembly Ministers to promote the best output for UK Ltd.
	I mentioned a moment ago that the recent figures from the motor industry were encouraging. The number of cars built in the UK last month showed an increase of more than 40% on the same time last year, and I am sure Members of all parties will welcome that figure.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and other colleagues for their co-operation.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Points of order will follow the statement on banking reform.

Banking Reform

Mark Hoban: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on banking reform.
	The financial crisis exposed a great many flaws in the system. Banks borrowed too much, took risks they did not understand and bought securities that proved to be far from secure. Banking groups became too complex and interconnected to be managed effectively, regulators failed to identify the risks and taxpayers paid the price. Between October 2008 and December 2010, European taxpayers provided almost €300 billion to prop up their banks, with liquidity and lending support in the trillions. In the UK, the bail-out of RBS was the biggest banking bail-out in the world.
	Just as the crisis revealed many flaws, there is no single solution. The Government are reforming the substance and structure of the financial architecture, putting the Bank of England in charge of prudential regulation. We have created the Financial Policy Committee to look at risks across the financial system. Our permanent bank levy penalises short-term wholesale funding, and we have introduced the toughest and most transparent pay regime of any major financial centre in the world. We have worked with our international partners to deliver robust, consistent prudential standards for banks and markets.
	The White Paper that we are publishing today sets out how we will implement the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking. The Government’s reforms will form a key part of our broader programme of reform. In the same way that the action we have taken on the deficit has meant that UK debt is currently seen as a safe-haven asset by investors around the world, we will ensure that British banks will be resilient, stable and competitive, and so attractive to investors at home and abroad.
	The eurozone crisis makes reform more, not less important. The link between the strength of a country’s banking sector and that country’s stability could not be clearer. At the same time, our proposals reflect the progress that has been made in European and international regulation since December. The Government welcome the European Commission’s bank recovery and resolution directive, which will improve member states’ ability to resolve cross-border banks without imposing costs on taxpayers. We will also continue to press for full Basel III implementation in Europe.
	The goals of today’s White Paper are clear. First, since financial crises rarely repeat the pattern of the past, we must ensure that banks are more resilient to shocks. Secondly, we must make our banks more resolvable, so that if they fail they do not threaten the provision of vital services to the real economy. Seeing through those two goals will achieve our third—to curb risk-taking in financial markets. It must be clear that investors reap rewards when banks do well, but take the pain if banks fail.
	The Government will ring-fence retail deposits from the risks posed by international wholesale and investment banking. A ring-fenced bank will be economically and legally separate from the rest of its group and run by an independent board. The ring fence will not in itself
	prevent a bank from failing, but it will insulate the deposits of families and businesses, and if a bank does fail those essential parts of the banking system can continue without recourse to the taxpayer.
	The deposits and overdrafts of individuals and of small and medium-sized businesses will, in general, be placed in ring-fenced banks. To minimise the risks that a ring-fenced bank is exposed to, it will be prohibited from conducting the vast majority of international wholesale and investment banking. It will not be permitted to carry out activities through branches or subsidiaries outside the European economic area, or, except in limited circumstances, with financial institutions. Beyond that, and within certain constraints, firms may decide what to put inside the ring fence. Ring-fencing will provide customers with flexibility, but not at the cost of financial stability.
	The Government also propose to strengthen the ICB’s recommendations by applying strict controls to the use of derivatives by a ring-fenced bank to hedge its balance sheet. That will ensure that a ring-fenced bank does not take excessive risks when managing its own risks, as was the case with J. P. Morgan’s much publicised trading loss.
	Governance of the ring-fenced banks will be important. The Government propose to strengthen the ICB recommendations in that area, establishing separate risk committees and possibly also separate remuneration committees. However, it is important to focus these reforms where they will have the biggest impact, which is on the biggest, too-big-too-fail banks. We therefore propose that smaller banks, with less than £25 billion of mandated deposits, will be exempt from those requirements. Large, systemically important banks gain a competitive advantage from the perceived implicit guarantee. Our targeted reforms will remove that advantage, helping smaller banks and new entrants.
	One of the clearest lessons from the crisis is that investors and creditors, not taxpayers, should bear the costs of failure. That is why we have supported Basel III, which increases bank capital to 7%, with a top-up for systemically important banks, and why we have pressed for that to be implemented across Europe, but to protect taxpayers, the Government will go further. The largest UK ring-fenced banks should hold an additional 3% of equity on top of the Basel III minimum numbers. The Government also strongly endorse the introduction of a binding minimum leverage ratio. The White Paper supports the Basel proposal of a 3% leverage ratio for all banks, including UK ring-fenced banks, and we will continue to press for the implementation of the Basel standard through EU law.
	Large ring-fenced banks should hold a minimum amount of loss-absorbing capacity—made up of debt or equity—of 17% of risk-weighted assets. Their overseas operations should be exempt from that requirement unless they pose a risk to financial stability. For smaller UK banks, as the ICB recommends, the minimum requirement should be lower.
	To deliver those proposals, the authorities need a way to “bail in” bank liabilities so that bondholders, not taxpayers, bear the losses. The Government will work with European partners to ensure that the ICB recommendations on bail-in are credibly and consistently applied across
	Europe through the recovery and resolution directive. We intend to introduce the principle of depositor preference for insured deposits. Unsecured lenders to banks are better placed to monitor the risks that banks are taking and should take losses ahead of ordinary depositors.
	Our proposals on financial stability also improve competition in UK banking. The implicit guarantee to large banks distorts competition; its reduction will help to create a level playing field. However, we want to do more to encourage new entrants and promote competition. We will shortly issue a consultation on reform to the payments system. I welcome the reviews by the Bank of England and the FSA into the prudential and conduct requirements for new entrants to ensure that they are appropriate and not disproportionate. We strongly support the need for a stronger challenger bank to emerge from the Lloyds Banking Group divestment. We are engaged with Lloyds and the European Commission to ensure that the divestment process creates as strong a challenger as possible. A more competitive banking system will work only—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Government Members do not need assistance from the Opposition on where they should sit. The Minister is making a serious statement to the House. Perhaps Opposition Members could hear what he has to say.

Mark Hoban: That really sums up the Opposition. All they can talk about is who sits where. They have no ideas on how to resolve this banking crisis.
	I welcome the reviews by the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority into the prudential and conduct requirements for new entrants to ensure that they are appropriate and not disproportionate. However, as I have said, a more competitive banking market will work only if consumers are prepared to change banks. The Government are pleased with the progress on the industry-led initiative to make current account switching faster and easier for customers. Providers covering 97% of the current account market have signed up and the scheme is on track to be launched next September. However, to switch, customers need better information, so the Government welcome the fact that the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Conduct Authority will take forward the ICB recommendation to improve transparency across all retail banking products. Work is already under way on a number of projects, such as making account data available to customers electronically, to enable them to shop around.
	Financial stability is a prerequisite for growth. Our analysis suggests that the proposals in the White Paper will cost, in gross domestic product terms, in the region of £0.6 to £1.4 billion per annum. However, that should be compared with the estimate that the 2007 to 2009 crisis has already cost the UK economy £140 billion, which is one hundred times the maximum cost estimate of our proposals.
	The proposals, although ambitious in scale, are proportionate in impact. They will promote financial stability while supporting sustainable growth and making the UK’s role as the world’s leading international financial centre secure. The reforms we are announcing today, together with the changes we are making to the regulatory architecture, demonstrate that the Government are
	determined to take action to deliver a stable and sustainable banking sector that underpins rather than undermines economic growth. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Balls: Let me begin by thanking the Minister for notice of today’s Treasury statement on the vital issue of banking reform. The reforms are so important that—we read in the newspapers—they are to be the subject of the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech tonight.
	The Minister said the statement was serious, and I am sure Opposition Members and Government Members will all be thinking: “Why is the Chancellor not making it?” Should I call him the part-time Chancellor? He was able to spend the afternoon on the Government Bench yesterday to support the embattled Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, but he is seemingly unwilling, despite media trails, to come to the House today. What is the Chancellor running scared of? Is he too busy this week on his other duties to be the Chancellor, or is the truth that he is ducking answering the questions because—once again—he is not on top of the details of his brief?
	There are questions to answer. Last September, the Opposition welcomed the report by Sir John Vickers and the Independent Commission on Banking, which sets out radically to reshape our banking industry. We urged the Government to implement the reforms without foot-dragging or watering them down, but I fear that watering down is where we are heading. Is not the truth that, having failed to secure international agreement in Brussels and Basel on tougher international banking standards, the Chancellor is now being forced to water down and fudge the Vickers reforms?
	That is one area in which the Opposition would not welcome a U-turn from the Chancellor. The Minister will say in his response that I am wrong, and that there is no U-turn, just as Ministers said we were wrong to spot U-turns on pasties, caravans, churches, charities and skips, but a pattern is emerging with this Chancellor. He declares, “This Chancellor is not for turning,” and then sends along a hapless junior Minister to do the job for him. We can ask the Exchequer Secretary all about that.
	If the Chancellor is not watering down Vickers, why will he not agree to the Opposition’s request to ask the Vickers commission to come back this autumn and publish an independent report on progress in implementing its reforms in the past 12 months? The Chancellor could publish that report alongside the autumn statement, when he will have to come to the House to explain why his failing economic plan has plunged our economy back into recession. That is one area where a U-turn would be warmly welcome.
	On progress against the three tests for banking reform, first, to protect taxpayers, the Opposition support the Vickers conclusion that banking services should be safeguarded and ring-fenced. In November 2006, the Minister told the House that
	“light-touch…regulation is in the interests of the”
	financial
	“sector globally.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 995.]
	May I ask this champion of light-touch regulation to explain why, contrary to Vickers, it is right to allow retail banks inside the ring fence to trade in derivatives and hedging products, which are among the controversial interest rate swap products that many small firms complain they were mis-sold in recent years? I have said many times that the previous Government got bank regulation wrong. Those on the Government Front Bench also got it wrong, but they are getting it wrong again. The Chancellor should be careful about leaving the door too wide open.
	The Opposition agree with the Vickers view that we need a minimum leverage ratio and higher equity requirements for larger ring-fenced banks, but will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor is setting a lower minimum leverage ratio than the Vickers commission recommended, and that he is departing from the recommendation that larger banks should have tougher rules?
	The Chancellor implied in December that he would mandate those services specifically within the ring fence to provide clarity and certainty. Can the Minister explain why the Chancellor is now delegating that detailed task to the Bank of England—the regulator—and not putting it in primary legislation? Will the Chancellor—or, on his behalf, the Minister—commit to inserting in the Bill the requirement that large UK retail banks should have equity capital of at least 10%? Is not the real problem that the Chancellor is not in the driving seat on this agenda?
	That takes me to our second test, on international agreements. In December, I asked the Chancellor whether he was confident that he would get the necessary international and EU-wide agreements to implement Vickers. The answer is that he has not succeeded in delivering that. The Chancellor himself said at last month’s ECOFIN, when he refused to agree to an EU statement on capital requirements, that they would
	“make me look like an idiot”—
	a muttering idiot perhaps! Two weeks later, though, he signed up to exactly the same deal. The problem is that there remains the risk that he will be overruled by the EU.
	There is a wider problem. We agree with the Chancellor that the UK should not contribute to a eurozone-wide deposit insurance scheme, but the Commission’s proposals go much wider and are said to be intended to apply to the 27. The Chancellor gives the impression that he has a veto on the plans, so that they would apply only to the 17. Will the Minister tell us, then, whether the proposals for Europe-wide banking supervision will be subject to qualified majority voting under existing treaties, and will he tell us how the Chancellor is doing building alliances across the EU to ensure that British interests are properly protected and that Vickers is implemented?
	That brings me to my final test: the impact on growth and the wider economy.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will be brief, given how much of the time allocation he has already taken.

Edward Balls: I shall put my questions briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only regret that I cannot put these questions to the Chancellor because he has not turned up.
	We have consistently urged the Chancellor to take a swifter approach to competition and to have a growth objective for the new Financial Policy Committee. We and the CBI agree on that, but the Chancellor will not listen. The problem is that in those circumstances Vickers implementation could lead to a continuing impact on business lending at the expense of small businesses.
	To conclude, we set three tests for Vickers, but on each one the Government are failing, causing uncertainty where we need confidence, lending and growth. They are failing to take the lead on reforms in the EU, and fudging and watering down proper taxpayer protection. We need a Chancellor who can do the economics, grip the detail and work full time on the job—someone who at least turns up in the House and answers questions on this vital issue.

Mark Hoban: The shadow Chancellor was the Minister who stood by when bank balance sheets ballooned and banks took on these risks. He did nothing to tackle that problem. As the Governor of the Bank of England said in May:
	“With the benefit of hindsight, we should have shouted from the rooftops that a system had been built in which banks were too important to fail, that banks had grown too quickly and borrowed too much, and that so-called ‘light-touch’ regulation hadn't prevented any of this.”
	Only two politicians were quoted in the FSA’s report on the failure of RBS as champions of light-touch regulation—the shadow Chancellor and the former Prime Minister, the architects and cheerleaders of light-touch regulation at home and abroad. They should recognise the costs that the British Government and economy have borne as a consequence of banking failure— £140 billion between 2007 and 2009. We must recognise the need for a stable banking system to ensure stable and sustainable growth in the UK economy.
	As Sir John Vickers proposed, we are ring-fencing retail banking, imposing the higher capital standards required by him and introducing a binding minimum leverage ratio on banks. The shadow Chancellor asked some questions in the mix of his lengthy contribution, but he did not apologise for his role in the banking crisis. However, I shall respond to his tests. First, we have achieved international agreement with our European partners to implement Vickers through capital requirements directive 4 and capital requirements regulation. We have achieved that goal and are working to introduce a binding leverage ratio with international partners. Vickers can, therefore, be implemented through the existing international regulatory framework.
	The shadow Chancellor talked about a banking union. Banking union is a product of the requirement for fiscal union and will be needed to promote stability in the eurozone, but that will not flow through to non-eurozone EU member states—an important distinction to make. Banking union is about the sustainability of the eurozone, not the EU.
	The shadow Chancellor asked about hedging. Sir John Vickers recognised the need to ensure that retail customers and small businesses could access the hedging products necessary to manage risk on their balance sheets. However, we have gone beyond Vickers in imposing higher and tighter standards on how derivatives can be managed by a ring-fenced bank.
	I have set out a clear programme of reform that responds to the mistakes of the previous Government and ensures a stable and sustainable banking system that underpins, not undermines, economic growth.

Andrew Tyrie: The White Paper just published contains an impact assessment, paragraph 104 of which makes clear a point that we heard in extensive evidence—that costs to small businesses will rise as a consequence of these proposals. We also heard evidence that the scale of the rise would depend on the Government’s decision on the design of the ring fence. They have now published a lead option for that design, so what is their estimate of the increased cost of these proposals to small business lending?

Mark Hoban: We have considered Sir John’s recommendations carefully, including the cost on banks, the economy and business, but we felt it was in the interest of business to ensure that a wider range of products could be sold within the ring fence, including complex ones such as derivatives. We set out, in our cost-benefit analysis, to look at the cost of the package as a whole, not to break it up into particular areas. I am confident, however, that we will have a more stable banking system in a position to lend to business on a more sustainable basis. Through these reforms, we hope to increase competition in the banking system, which is in the interests of small businesses and will help to improve competition on price. I think, therefore, that this is a good package for businesses and will ensure the stability of the economy.

Andrew Love: Next Thursday, there will be a debate in the House on the mis-selling of derivative and hedging products to small businesses, yet the Minister has announced that these will be allowed inside the ring fence. His excuse is that there will be stricter regulation, but are these not high-risk products that should not be mixed up with deposits in retail banks?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully. I do not know whether he, like me, has a fixed-rate mortgage, but that is actually a form of derivative. These products are widely used and there is a need for them. It is in the interests of businesses that such products be within the ring fence—it will provide much more control over their sale—although it is important to supervise properly the conduct of the banks selling them. The Financial Conduct Authority is well place to provide that supervision, and with the tougher powers we have given it, that supervision will apply not only to retail customers but to business customers.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend think it amazing, as I do, that the Opposition seem to take no responsibility for the tripartite regulation system that led to the complete disaster we have seen? I congratulate him on working to ensure that such a lack of accountability never happens again. Does he agree, however, that more can and needs to be done on new competition in banking, particularly on access for new banking entrants? Will he continue to assess—I keep asking him this—bank account portability, because it would be a game changer in the banking sector?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend, who is right to point out the lack of an apology from the Opposition for their role in the crisis, has persistently raised account portability. She will know that Sir John Vickers considered this matter in the report but opted for improvements to the switching process to make it easier and more straightforward for customers. It is important that we pursue that, although full account portability will be an option if the former does not prove effective. We also welcome the work that the FSA and the Bank of England are doing looking at the requirements on new entrants to the banking system to ensure that both the conduct and prudential requirements are appropriate and not disproportionate.

David Winnick: On banking reform, would it not have been appropriate to make at least some reference to the outright greed of those who head the banks or to the millions of pounds that some of them get each year? Why no such condemnation—or is it the case that this Tory-led Government could not care less? What is all this business about “We’re all in it together”? It does not appear so, does it?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman should reflect for a moment on what happened when his Government were in power. Bankers were able to take their bonuses in cash in the year they were paid, while Lord Mandelson said that he was “intensely relaxed” about the filthy rich. What we have done since we came into office is put in place the toughest and most transparent pay regime of a major financial centre and ensured that shareholders have a stronger voice over bank pay. We have tackled the problem, which the previous Government simply neglected and allowed to fester and develop, thereby contributing towards the crisis that we have seen in the banking sector.

Stephen Williams: Two of the core reasons why the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came together in coalition were to stabilise our public finances and to reform Britain’s broken banking sector. Our constituents tell us that they want more banks that specialise in lending to small and medium-sized businesses, as well as ethical providers, such as Triodos bank, which is based in my constituency. Will the Minister undertake to smooth the path through regulation for new entrants and also make it easier for people to move their money from existing banks to new providers?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes some important points. We need to make the regime easier when it comes to authorising banks, which is why the Bank and the FSA are looking at prudential and conduct requirements, to ensure that they are appropriate and not disproportionate, which is one of the criticisms that many potential new entrants make. However, he is also right that once we have new entrants to the market, they need to be able to attract business from other banks. We need to ensure that customers are able to switch their accounts more easily. An industry-led initiative will be launched later this year which will help with that, but it is also important that customers understand the costs of their accounts and are able to use that money to help them shop around and opt for better-quality or new providers, so that there is much more choice and diversity in the market.

Jonathan Edwards: Considering that the banks are directly responsible for the great recession that we have experienced since 2008, is the Minister not concerned that delaying the implementation of the reforms until 2019, as reported in the press today, will leave seven years for the so-called golden goose to hold a golden gun to the heads of ordinary working people and the real economy, and give ample time for the all-powerful financial lobby to water down the proposals?

Mark Hoban: What we have been clear about, following the Vickers proposals on the timing of implementation—Vickers suggested that the measures should be implemented by 2019—is that we are taking steps now to ensure that there is a framework in place, so that banks understand what the rules will be and can respond. Today’s White Paper is part of that, and we will produce a draft Bill later, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny as well. There will therefore be a transparent process to ensure that we implement the proposals. The proposals that Sir John Vickers made, such as ring-fencing, are vital to ensure the stability of the banking system and the stability of the economy.

Mark Field: In the 14 months since the publication of John Vickers’s interim report, which other major global financial centres have gone down the route of proposing either a ring fence along these lines or the gold-plating of capital requirements, which is also proposed, on top of Basel III, which was supposed to harmonise capital arrangements?

Mark Hoban: A number of countries have argued for the freedom to go further and impose higher capital surcharges—Switzerland is one and Sweden, which has introduced higher capital surcharges, is another. It is our responsibility to ensure that we protect the stability of the UK economy and the interests of the taxpayer, and respond to the structure of the banking system in the UK. Bank balance sheets in the UK are many times larger than our economy. We are much more exposed to risk. It is therefore right that we should take actions in the UK that help to protect the economy and the taxpayer, which is why we are introducing these proposals today.

Anas Sarwar: The Scottish Finance Secretary and the Scottish First Minister have said that if Scotland were to become a separate country, the Bank of England would remain the lender of last resort, while UK regulatory authorities would still oversee Scottish institutions. Can the Minister tell us what representations the Government have received from the Scottish Government and whether he is aware of any other EU country that does not have its own central bank or regulatory regime?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. There are some important questions to be answered about how the banks would be regulated if Scotland were to become independent. As I made clear in my response to the shadow Chancellor, a fiscal union needs its own system of banking supervision and its own resolution arrangements, and it is hard to see quite how things would work for an independent Scotland.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement today, and also for these measures, which go a long way in dealing with the “too big to fail” problem, and in some ways deal with the “too small to start” problem. He will be aware that in the last 100 years, only one ab initio banking licence has been granted. Part of the problem is a reluctance on the part of officials at the FSA to grant new banking licences. Will he look again at the issue of competition in the Prudential Regulatory Authority, in order to try to help challenger banks enter the marketplace?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said, the Bank and the FSA are looking at prudential and conduct requirements to ensure that they are proportionate. However, the other thing I would say is that the implicit guarantee enjoyed by our bigger banks distorts competition. Our reforms tackle that, helping to create a more level playing field for new entrants and enabling them to compete properly with established players.

Keith Vaz: The Minister will know that four weeks ago today the liquidation of the largest bank to have gone bust in Britain—BCCI—was completed, after 21 years. The foundation of the system introduced by the last, Labour Government was the Bingham report. The first part has been published; the second part is still confidential. As far as I know, only successive Chancellors have read it. Has the Minister read the second, confidential part, and does he not think it is time to publish it, so that we can have a proper understanding of the reforms that he has set before the House today?

Mark Hoban: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on a number of occasions, and I am not going to give a different answer from those that I or the Chancellor have given before.

Steven Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measures relating to bail-in and depositor preference in particular. However, I am sure he will remember that under the last Government the FSA came under political pressure. Will his measures deal with that and ensure that, in future, banks are resolved under the rule of law?

Mark Hoban: It is important that independent regulators exist and that their independence is credible. Going back to the FSA’s report on the RBS failure, it was interesting that the FSA clearly came under sustained pressure from the shadow Chancellor and the then Prime Minister to have a light-touch regulatory system, and we have seen the consequence of that. It is important that there are clear rules to ensure that regulators act independently and that their regulation is seen to be credible. The shadow Chancellor should recognise that he got it wrong when he called for light-touch regulation and championed it throughout the world.

Sheila Gilmore: Given the double-dip recession and the continuing fall in net lending to businesses, what exactly are the Minister’s reforms going to do to stimulate the economy? Is there not a risk that we are going for the stability of the graveyard?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady makes an important point about getting the balance right, but let us not forget that the banking crisis cost this economy £140 billion between 2007 and 2009. An unstable banking sector costs the economy dear: it costs jobs, it costs tax revenues and it costs families. The important thing is to ensure that we get the banking system right, so that it is stable and promotes growth, rather than allowing banks to let loose, grow their balance sheets unconstrained and take on risks that they do not understand, which is what happened in the lead-up to the financial crisis, when the shadow Chancellor’s system of regulation was in full swing.

Thomas Docherty: Where is the Chancellor, and at what point did he decide not to make the statement himself?

Mark Hoban: It has always been the case that I would make the statement today. This may come as news to the shadow Chancellor—it may be different from his experience when he was City Minister—but the Treasury is a team. We have worked together on these reforms, and it was always the intention that I would make today’s statement. The shadow Chancellor should not believe what he reads on Twitter.

William Cash: Having invested so much time advocating EU jurisdiction over banking in the City, how are the Government going to protect the City of London both from that EU jurisdiction and from qualified majority voting?

Mark Hoban: I think it is very clear that the emerging debate about a banking union flows from the problems we are seeing in the eurozone. It is important that the banking union helps resolve some of the problems in the eurozone, but it is a consequence of having a single currency, not a consequence of having a single market. It is important for the eurozone to move ahead in dealing with its problems and strengthening the banking regime within it. It is also important for the future of the City to ensure that there are proper safeguards over the functioning of the single market.

William Bain: With a double-dip recession made in Downing street, bank lending having fallen for five consecutive quarters and businesses facing a shortfall of £190 billion in finance over the next decade, why are there no further proposals in the White Paper to diversify the range of banking institutions to make sure that finance gets into the real economy?

Mark Hoban: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet read the White Paper. If he did, he would see a section on competition that deals with encouraging diversity, making it easier for new entrants to come into the market and promoting switching. When the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper, he might like to come back to me.

Greg Mulholland: One of the very important and positive aspects of the Government’s reforms has been transparency, particularly over pay and banking products. Will the Minister assure us that there will also be a move to ensure greater transparency
	over bank lending figures, as small business organisations, and indeed small businesses themselves, tell us that the new lending figures provided often include existing loans and are simply not honest?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right, and I think transparency plays a key role in holding the financial system to account. We need to make sure that data on lending is transparent, but we also need to focus on identifying other ways in which we can help small businesses. That is why the Government introduced the national loan guarantee scheme—to help support lending to new businesses. That scheme is working; it is making thousands of loans to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are benefiting from the lower interest rates that the scheme delivers. That is an important way to help businesses grow.

Ian Murray: Why will the Treasury not agree to Opposition requests for the Vickers commission to implement a progress report on how the Government are doing with its recommendations? Is it because the Government are trying to water them down?

Mark Hoban: The process we are going to go through is a very transparent one. We have published a White Paper today, setting out clearly our response—our detailed response—to John Vickers’ recommendations. As I said earlier, we are going to publish a draft Bill, which will be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. We are being very transparent about how we are implementing Sir John Vickers’ recommendations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with us and ensure that the recommendations get through, so that we remedy the mistakes of the past.

Richard Fuller: I welcome the Minister’s proposals for the long-term protection of depositors, but he will be aware that many of us are concerned about the supply of credit to businesses in our economy right now and the impact right now of these long-term proposals. What analysis has the Treasury made of the impact on credit from these proposals in the near term? May I suggest that the Minister continues to monitor
	the impact with more urgency so that the concerns that have been raised can be assuaged?

Mark Hoban: Strong banks that are in a position to lend to businesses are absolutely vital to the long-term future of our economy. We have seen that the mistakes of the past eventually catch up with people. They have led to a weakening of bank balance sheets, which are now being strengthened. We need not only strong banks, but schemes in place to sustain bank lending and to ensure a supply of credit to SMEs.

Matthew Hancock: In the week we discovered that a plan put forward to the last Government to prevent the run on Northern Rock was ignored, I warmly welcome these proposals. How will the Minister ensure that as finance changes in the years ahead, the Vickers proposals to ensure separation will always stay up to date with new technology and new techniques?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes two important points. He is right to highlight Hector Sants’s comments this week about how the previous Government ignored his proposals, leading to a run on Northern Rock that triggered widespread financial instability. If his proposals had been listened to, we could have had more financial stability, which would have been to the benefit of the economy.
	My hon. Friend is also right that finance changes. Part of the problem of the previous Government’s regime was that it did not keep pace with changes in the markets. The previous Government clearly did not understand what was going on in the banking sector, despite the many meetings between the City Minister and the banks, but I think the regime that we are putting in place is forward looking. We will have the Financial Policy Committee looking at emerging threats to financial stability, and both our introduction of the Vickers reforms and the rules of the Prudential Regulation Authority will help to ensure that the ring fence is kept up date and meets not just the needs of business, but the need for a strong and stable economy.

Points of Order

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have raised previously the awful case of the Prenga family, with Fran Prenga in a Greek jail. To my astonishment yesterday, I discovered that MPs’ parliamentary offices cannot phone numbers abroad, so I was unable to phone embassy and consular staff in Greece, unable to contact the family and unable to speak to the office of Edward McMillan-Scott, MEP, who is assisting in this case. It is clearly an absurdity to have to get my constituency office to make calls that I need to make myself from London. Could this matter be addressed as a matter of urgency?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The matter is one to be taken up with the director of Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology. I am happy to do so, and then refer back to the hon. Gentleman as quickly as I can. He has raised a pertinent point, which requires a timely response. I hope that will be to his satisfaction.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

Mental Health

Mr Speaker: At this stage, there is no time limit on Back-Bench contributions. Let us see how it goes.

Nicky Morgan: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of mental health.
	I am particularly grateful to all members, old and new, of the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate in the Chamber. The effort to secure the debate has been done jointly with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the chairman of the all-party group on mental health, which he has led so well, and with my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris)—I hope I have pronounced that one correctly—and the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
	We were quite clear when we put in our bid that we wanted a full debate on the Floor of the House. Why? It is at least four years, and probably slightly longer, since the general topic of mental health was debated in Chamber. That is a long time, given that 25% of the population—one in four people—will experience a mental health problem at some point in their lives. Just imagine if this were a physical health condition and it had not been talked about by Members in the House of Commons other than in very specific ways such as Adjournment debates for a very long time.
	Mental health comes at an economic and social cost to the UK economy of £105 billion a year, yet mental health has been a Cinderella service—poorly funded compared with other conditions and not spoken about nearly enough either inside or outside this House. It is the largest single cause of disability, with 23% of the disease burden of the NHS, yet the NHS spends only l1% of its budget on mental health problems.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only a matter of the effects on individual mental health because mental health issues can lead to physical disabilities, leading to extra costs to the NHS on top?

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Centre for Mental Health has shown that for a person who has a physical and a mental health condition, the costs of treatment are increased by 45%. Those are additional costs around mental health problems, which are often untreated initially and then have to be treated at a later stage, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
	According to the Centre for Mental Health, only a quarter of people with mental health conditions—children as well as adults—receive any treatment. I have no reason to doubt that statistic, and I find it shocking that
	three quarters of people with mental health conditions are not being treated. We should ask ourselves why that is.
	Recent figures have shown that depression alone is costing the economy £10 billion a year. As we all know, we do not have a lot of money to spend, so we should be working as hard as we can on preventive measures. One in every eight pounds spent on dealing with long-term conditions is linked to poor mental health, which equates to between £8 billion and £13 billion of NHS spending each year.
	I welcome the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I hope that today’s debate will be conducted on pretty non-partisan terms, but I realise that that may strike Opposition Members as a controversial comment. I welcome the opportunities that the Act offers for the commissioning of mental health services. I spoke in the Third Reading debate, and I especially welcomed the Government’s acceptance of an amendment tabled in the other place to ensure parity between physical and mental health. Although those are only words in a Bill, they are very important words, and they send a very clear signal not only to sufferers from mental health conditions and their families, but to those working in the NHS. I hope that, in his annual mandate to the national commissioning board, the Secretary of State will insist that the board prioritise mental health.
	How are we to achieve parity between physical and mental health conditions? The question is about money, certainly, but it is also about awareness. Confessing to having a mental health condition carries far too much stigma. That is part of the reason for our wish to hold a debate on the Floor of the House. If we do not start to talk about mental health in this place, and encourage others to talk about it, how can we expect to de-stigmatise mental health conditions and enable people to confront their problems?
	I find it interesting that, when I was preparing for the debate, a few people who had initially said to me “Yes, go ahead, mention my name” came back after thinking about it for a couple of days and said “Actually, I would rather you didn’t, because I have not told my employer,” or “I have not told all my friends and my family.” It is clear that mental health conditions still carry a considerable stigma. Admitting to having been sectioned is traumatic, especially when the information appears on Criminal Records Bureau checks connected with job applications.
	I welcome the work of Time to Change, which has been funded partly by the Department of Health as well as by Comic Relief. I also welcome the Sunday Express campaign on mental health. However, the de-stigmatisation of mental health conditions is down to all of us, and it is especially important for those of us who are employers not to discriminate against people who may be working for us and who tell us that they have a mental health condition. I hope that today’s debate will constitute another firm step on the path to ensuring that mental health conditions are de-stigmatised, because I think that without that de-stigmatisation, successful treatment will be very hard for a person to achieve.
	We asked for today’s debate to be kept deliberately general, so that Members in all parts of the House could raise many different issues on behalf of their constituents and, perhaps, themselves or their families as well as looking at the mental health policy landscape. Mental ill health is no respecter of age or background.
	It can strike anyone, often very unexpectedly. That includes people in senior positions such as Members of Parliament, company directors and school governors. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) will refer to the private Member’s Bill that he will be presenting, which would end discrimination against people in such positions who have mental health conditions.
	I expect that during today’s debate we shall hear about new mums with post-natal depression. For them, a time of life that should be one of the happiest is often one of the most difficult. I welcome the recent Government announcement that health visitors will be properly trained to recognise signs of post-natal depression, which I think was long overdue. I expect that we shall also hear about veterans from our armed forces who suffer from mental health conditions, and about older people who suffer from dementia. Particular issues affect our black and ethnic minority communities, as well as those who find themselves in the criminal justice system. I am sure that we shall hear from the Minister abut the Government’s widely welcomed framework document “No health without mental health”, which was published last year. We now await the detailed implementation plan on which the Department of Health is working alongside leading mental health charities.
	I want to talk, very briefly—I have noted Mr Speaker’s strictures about time limits—about three specific matters: listening to patients, integrated care, and the wider mental health well-being landscape. We made it clear during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act that one of the developments that we wanted to see, as a Government, was “No decision about me without me”. That means patients having a voice in their care. It seems to me from my discussions with those in the mental health system who have been sufferers that once the initial crisis has been dealt with, they tend to want choice and involvement in their treatment. They are facing a lifetime condition. They will have to self-medicate, look after themselves and identify the point at which they may be deteriorating or potentially reaching crisis point for years and years to come. They want a voice. They want to be heard by the health care professionals, and I think that it is up to us as a Government to help them to achieve that.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady has just said that people who suffer from mental health problems have a lifelong condition. I think that many people have an occasional mental health problem.

Nicky Morgan: I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that people often enter the system at a time of crisis and experience a single episode, but others who experience episodes will get better. For years they may have no problems at all. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can tell him on the basis of the experience of constituents and family members that it is possible to go in and out of the system. One of the hardest things for people to accept when they are diagnosed with a mental health condition is that they will be on drugs for years and years. That is often difficult for people to admit, particularly when they are striking up a new relationship or working for a new employer. I think that that is why people want to have a voice in the way in which they are treated.
	According to MIND, people are three times as likely to be satisfied with their treatment if they are presented with a choice of treatments, and failure to stay on medication is the main cause of relapses, when people often have to re-enter the system at a time of crisis. There is a need to work with and trust health professionals. According to a recent study by the University of Kent,
	“Low levels of trust between mental health patients and professionals can lead to poor communication which generates negative outcomes for patients, including a further undermining of trust”,
	and
	“trust can play a significant role in facilitating service users’ initial and ongoing engagement with services, the openness of their communication, and the level of co-operation with, and outcomes from, treatment or medication.”
	In 2009, a mental heath in-patient survey by the Care Quality Commission revealed that in some mental health trusts as few as 40% of people diagnosed with schizophrenia felt that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. I am no health professional—I hope that some Members who are health professionals will speak later this afternoon—but what people have said to me suggests that medication is not always the answer, at least in the long term. Research by Platform 51 has found that a quarter of women have been on anti-depressants for 10 years or more, that half of women on anti-depressants were not offered alternatives at the time of prescription, and that a quarter of women on anti-depressants have waited a year or more for a review of their medication
	I welcome the Government’s investment of £400 million in treatments under the improving access to psychological therapies programme. I should add, to be fair, that that builds on announcements made by the last Government. I also commend the report by the Centre for Social Justice on talking therapies, which calls for a broadening of therapies. Every patient is different, and patients will respond differently to different medications and therapies. Mental health patients must have real choice, and I think that Any Qualified Provider and Payment by Results must be extended to them in the way in which they are being extended to patients with physical health conditions. We must also ensure that patients’ voices are heard within the management structures of both clinical commissioning groups and health and wellbeing boards, whose job is to hold services to account for the care that they are giving.
	I expect that Members will refer to integrated care: the need for all services to work together. Poor mental health has an impact on every area of Government policy: health care, benefits, housing and debt, social exclusion, business and employment, criminal justice and education, to name but a few. One person with a mental health condition may need help from many different agencies, but too often care is not joined up, and each agency deals with its own bit and passes the person on. Sometimes there is no follow-up, and the person is lost in the system.
	In a 2011 survey, 45% of people contacted by MIND said that they had been given eight or more assessments by different agencies in a single year. YoungMinds, which campaigns on behalf of children and young people with mental health conditions, has called for one worker to be allotted to each child needing support for
	a mental health condition, so that children can avoid multiple assessments and need not re-tell their story each time they see a new person in the system. However, there must be a clear care pathway, whatever the point at which access is gained to the mental health system.
	The other thing patients are calling for is the ability to self-refer. We need to do all we can to prevent people from reaching crisis point, and often it is patients themselves who are best able to tell when they are about to reach that point. My West Leicestershire clinical commissioning group is developing an acute care pathway in partnership with Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. It plans to replace the many and varied access routes to secondary care and mental health services with a single access point, in order to provide speedy access at times of greatest need. That move has come out of both patient and GP feedback.

Robert Buckland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am particularly interested in the proposed single access point for services. That could be useful not only for acute services, but for non-acute services and well-being provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that well-being provision is an important part of mental health provision?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall talk about well-being shortly. We often talk about these subjects in very negative ways. If we all talk about our mental well-being, and are regularly asked about it when we see our GPs, that will help a lot to destigmatise mental health issues.
	I want to touch briefly on secondary care. One of the Sunday Express campaign demands is that all hospitals should be therapeutic environments where people with mental health problems feel safe and are treated with respect and have someone to talk to. In a debate in this House last November, I mentioned patients who abscond from secondary care units, and in particular the tragic case of my constituent Kirsty Brookes, who was able to escape from a unit in Leicester and subsequently hanged herself. I am sure the Minister will remember that debate, and our discussion of the definition of absconding.
	The Care Quality Commission has published its first report on absconding levels, and I welcome that, but the picture in respect of absconding and escape numbers is still unclear. The numbers provided in this first CQC report need to be broken down further, therefore, but the report showed that in the year in question—2009-10, I think—there were 4,321 incidents of absence without leave from secondary care. Some of them were, of course, far more serious than others; some will have involved a person missing a bus on the way back to the unit, while others might have ended in tragic circumstances. I make this point not to beat up on secondary care providers and health providers generally, but we must know the scale of a problem before we can begin to tackle it.
	The impact of the voluntary and community sector on mental health must not be forgotten either, and I hope Members will talk about that. The sector offers vital support, and it must be part of the commissioning landscape.

Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Many smaller voluntary sector organisations give a very good
	service and understand their communities. Under the commissioning process, however, they often lose out to very large enterprises—large charities and medical companies—that have no real understanding of the local community, particularly ethnic minority communities. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister needs to consider that issue further?

Nicky Morgan: I agree; that is an issue. The commissioning structures are being changed, with local GPs now deciding what care they want to buy and where they want to buy it from. I hope that change will allow them to explore the value of smaller organisations, which tend to know particularly well the people they are treating. Although such organisations might not have the clout of large organisations, they are often more successful in terms of patient care. I am sure the Minister has heard that point.
	I want to thank one of my regular correspondents, Mike Crump of My Time, a community interest company based in the west midlands. He may well be in the Public Gallery for this debate. My Time provides evidence-based, culturally sensitive professional counselling and support services. He said to me that a great deal of many people’s recoveries
	“is owed to therapies based on basic common sense not the miraculous powers of a tablet or the mysterious wonders of the medical profession.”
	Let me turn briefly to policing. My chief constable in Leicestershire is also the Association of Chief Police Officers mental health lead. In Leicestershire in 2011-12 there were 444 detentions under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which gives powers to take a person to a place of safety. Leicestershire police deals with serious incidents involving mental health issues on a daily basis, and it has provided me with a snapshot of what happened on the jubilee weekend. From 8 pm one night to 7 am the next morning it had dealt with 10 incidents in which mental health conditions or concerns were clearly prevalent. That night, police officers spent four hours with a man in hospital after he was detained under section 136. I therefore ask this question: are the police the right people to be dealing with such incidents?
	I hope Members will talk about the criminal justice system, and the fact that nine out of every 10 prisoners have a mental health problem. The Government are investing more than £19 million this year in diversion services, but it is still taking too long to get prisoners out of prison and into secure hospitals.
	Finally, I want to talk about the mental well-being landscape. All of us have mental health; it is just that some people’s is better than other people’s. We need to get to a situation where it is as normal to talk about our mental well-being as about our physical well-being.
	Public health policy has a role to play. Local authority public health services are key in promoting good public health. I welcome the Leicestershire joint strategic needs assessment chapter on mental health, which was published recently. It makes it clear that mental health is important and says that it cannot be seen in isolation, as many factors contribute to mental ill-health, including the economic instability at present—which I am sure we will hear about this afternoon—and the welfare reform changes, such as asking people whether they are fit enough to go back to work. I think such questions need to be
	asked, but I thank my constituent Jo Gibbs, who recently brought me a letter outlining her concerns about these changes and the anxiety and pressure they are causing her and others.

Julie Hilling: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and on her speech. On welfare reform, does she share my concern that people with mental health issues are being kicked off disability support allowance? Increasing numbers of people in that situation are coming to see me. Recently a constituent came to me who is bipolar on the Asperger’s spectrum and who scored zero in the assessment for that allowance.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure we will all have similar constituency cases. A survey by Mind found that most people with mental health problems want to work but may not be well enough. For some people, employment—the right employment with the right employer and the right support—is the right way forward once they are better. For other people, however, employment is not the answer. The hon. Lady is right that assessors have not always understood the mental health needs of certain people. The Government have tried to address that through the two Harrington reviews. The system is never going to be perfect. That is where Members of Parliament come in; we will be making arguments on behalf of our constituents. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, however. We need to do more, and we need to promote awareness of these issues.
	Other aspects of modern life do not help, such as loneliness and isolation. We live in an ever busier world, but people lead more isolated lives. We must not forget the question of families either. Sometimes they can be the cause of a person’s problems, but at other times they can be the solution. I commend the Centre for Social Justice for its work and its report, “Completing the Revolution”, about the importance of families and how significant family breakdown can be in respect of mental health problems.
	This is an important debate, but it is only one step along the path of giving mental health the priority that Members clearly feel is needed given the number of them present today. I look forward to hearing their views. We need to talk about mental health far more openly, and we need to make it much easier for people to find out information about how they can get help before they need it. It is too late when people reach crisis point.
	I look forward to the no health without mental health framework being implemented. Talking must never stop, but we must now also start implementing. I thank everybody who has contacted me in the run-up to this debate and shared their often very personal stories about their experiences in the mental health system. The House is all too often known for Members shouting at each other. I hope today shows that we are about more than that, and I hope we can all agree with the motion before us, as mental health is a huge priority for Britain and for our constituents, whether they are sufferers or carers. Working together, we can come up with integrated care that responds to the needs of patients and gives our mental well-being the prominence it merits.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to her very well-informed contribution. She is obviously a great champion for people who in many cases do not have a voice in the health system. Let us hope that by securing this debate we can give those people the voice they need, and not only, as she says, in the health service; we also need to get the message across to employers and others that mental health issues are not an inhibitor to a good and successful career and a fulfilled life. I shall discuss that in a moment.
	I declare an interest as the president of my local Chester-le-Street Mind group. I have had an interest in mental health for a number of years. The hon. Lady mentioned the role of the voluntary sector. It plays a fantastic role, not only in promoting the issue of mental health but in delivering services. In some cases, these organisations are better vehicles for delivering this localised help than some of the larger companies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), or even the NHS itself.
	The hon. Lady said that one in four people could suffer from mental health problems in their lifetime. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), speaking from the Lib Dem Front Bench, is both right and wrong in what he said. Some people do have mental health issues because of events in their life—crises happen and people can get over them in a short time—whereas others have long-term conditions that have to be lived with throughout their life, by way of drug treatment and other effective therapies, as the hon. Lady said. There is a big difference between those two situations. Anyone in this Chamber or any of their family members could suffer from short periods of mental health illness or be long-term sufferers. That is the important thing to get out of today’s debate.
	We also need to address the cost, which the hon. Lady mentioned. I am thinking not only about the cost to the NHS, and the personal cost to individuals and their families, but about the cost to UK plc. I reiterate that mental health issues can affect anyone. I know general practitioners who have gone through periods of severe depression. I know one who works as a consultant cardiologist and is brilliant in his field but who lives with mental health issues, and has for many years. He has a very understanding employer and is very open about it. Let us not say that there are any boundaries in mental health, because there are not; these issues can affect anyone in society.
	I wish to discuss two issues, one of which is the effect of funding on mental health. The other relates to the welfare reform changes, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) referred. They are having a disproportionate impact on people with mental health issues. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Loughborough that we do not want to get into a party political debate, but there is unjoined-up thinking in some parts of the coalition’s policy. I must say that I saw exactly the same thing when I was a Minister, when one Department does something that has an effect on others, and it is sometimes difficult to get round those circles. However, local authorities in the north-east are clearly having to cut back on funding for
	this. Mind has said in the briefing note it sent to us for today that about 22% of its funding at the local level has been cut, That is a shame because, as I said, those organisations are sometimes the best at not only being advocates for local mental health services, but at providing care. In regions such as my own in the north-east, funding is vital for those organisations. When I talk to local mental health professionals and charities, I find that it is unfortunately a fact of life that economic conditions at the moment mean that the demand for services is increasing.
	The hon. Member for Loughborough referred to the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and I agree with her that it does present some opportunities, if things are done properly. Chester-le-Street Mind, under the great leadership of Helen McCaughey and her husband, Charles, delivers a local therapy service, commissioned by the primary care trust, and it is great. It is carried out in the community, and that is the model that I like to see. The only concern I have, from talking to GPs over the years, is that although some of them are passionate about mental health and understand it, others do not. The challenge for the new commissioners is to take a bold step and say that some of these services can be delivered in the community by groups such as Chester-le-Street Mind and others. The Government might have to be aware of that nationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, this does not have to involve just large companies, because the approach I have described would be effective. That is my only concern: that although I know some very good GPs, including my own, who have a clear understanding of mental health issues, others are not very good at giving this appropriate priority—I am sure that hon. Lady is aware of some of those. We are thus presented with both an opportunity and a risk.

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is making an extremely good point, but does he agree that, under the reforms and the new NHS, a crucial role will be played by the health and wellbeing boards, which are there to monitor and ensure that the local health needs of local communities are provided for?

Kevan Jones: Yes, that is one of the key roles of those boards. Again, however, it will be important to ensure that we get the right people on those boards—for example, counsellors who really understand mental health on those boards. As the hon. Member for Loughborough said, people have empathy in respect of cancer, but do not quite understand mental health. I agree with the Minister that it is important that the boards are the counterweight to ensure that that happens, but I think that central Government also have to play a role in ensuring that it happens. As I say, we have some great opportunities here and the commissioned work that Chester-le-Street Mind delivers is excellent. In addition, it is cheap compared with some of the major contracts in terms of delivery, because it is delivered by well-trained professionals and by very committed and hard-working individuals in the community.
	A lot of mental health charities also rely on charity funding from organisations. In the north-east this funding comes from, for example, institutions such as the Northern
	Rock Foundation, which has now been taken over by Virgin Money. There is real concern that as those sums contract, the money going into mental health services from those groups will also contract. We need to keep an eye on the situation to ensure that, be it through the lottery or through organisations such as the Northern Rock Foundation or the County Durham Community Foundation, where funds are limited because of the economic crisis, mental health gets its fair share of the funding available. I mean no disrespect when I say that people give happily to Guide Dogs for the Blind or to cancer charities, but it is very much more difficult to get a lot of people to recognise and give money to mental health charities, unless they have been through or had a family member who has been involved in mental health issues. We need to be wary of that, too.
	I now wish to discuss the welfare benefit changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. I commend Mental Health North East, a very good group in the north-east that has interacted with the Department of Health. It is an umbrella group of mental health charities that not only campaigns for and raises awareness about mental health but delivers services to mental health charities and individuals. The organisation is run by a very dynamic chief executive, Lyn Boyd, and is made up of paid individuals and a large number of volunteers, many of whom have personal experience of mental health issues. They are very good advocates, not only ensuring that mental health is kept high on the political agenda but interacting very successfully with the Department of Health in consultations and so on.
	One piece of work that that organisation has considered is on a matter that I have increasingly seen in my constituency surgeries. There are people with mental health issues who were on the old incapacity benefit and are now on the new employment support allowance and who are, frankly, being treated appallingly. The way that is being done is costing the Government more money in the long term. I know that it is not the direct responsibility of the Department of Health, but some thought needs to go into how we deal with the work test for people with mental health illnesses. I am one of the first to recognise that, as most of the professionals say, working is good for people’s mental health; it is important to say that. However, we must recognise that certain people will have difficulties with that. If we are to get people with mental health problems into work, we must ensure that the pathway is a little more sympathetic than the one we have at the moment.
	Another massive problem is the work needed with employers. If employers are going to take on people with mental health issues, they will have to be very understanding to cope with those individuals.

Jeremy Corbyn: Many of those who are taken for work-related interviews by ATOS are declared fit for work, only to win an appeal to show that they are not. On many occasions, the levels of stress they have been through in going for the interview, failing it and winning an appeal are very detrimental to their health. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department must be far more sensitive about that and think a lot more before it starts to call people in for these interviews?

Kevan Jones: I totally agree and I shall give some examples of that in a minute.
	We must try to get a system in which employers, even in these tight economic circumstances, understand the mental health issues and can make adaptations. Whether we support employers who take people with mental health issues on for a certain period or whether we do other things, we need to think it out a bit more than it is at the moment.

Nicky Morgan: One statistic that I did not use in my speech was that only 1% of the access to work funding, which employers can use to help to smooth someone’s path back into employment, is used for mental health facilities. It could be used for counselling or support workers, but only 1% is spent on such provision in the context of the prevalence of mental health issues in the general population.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Lady makes an important point that should be considered. That is where we need to join up the two relevant Departments.
	Mental Health North East has carried out a survey and I thank that organisation and Derwentside citizen’s advice bureau for the examples I am going to use. Like the hon. Member for Loughborough, I asked whether I could use names. One person said that I could, but late last night she rang me to say no. I am sure that people will understand why I use letters to refer to these individuals rather than their names.
	The first case is that of Mr A, a 50-year-old man who lives alone and received ESA. He suffers from depression, anxiety, agoraphobia and anger issues. Despite the support he is getting and the drugs that he is taking, he was called by ATOS to a work-related interview. He got no points at all even though he finds it very strange to go outside the House, let alone to interact with people. He decided to appeal and attended the appeal. There is a huge backlog in the appeals system that is adding to people’s anxiety as they are having to wait a long time, and the pressure on citizen’s advice bureaux and local welfare rights organisations to support those appeals is creating a crisis in some of them. When I give some of these examples, Mr Speaker, you will see that they should never have gone to appeal in the first place.
	This case was very interesting. Mr A turned up at the appeal, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned earlier, caused him huge stress as he thought he was going to lose. He turned up in the afternoon, and his appeal had been heard that morning without his being present and his award had been granted on the basis of the medical evidence. If the appeal hearing could do that, why could ATOS not do so? The reason is that ATOS is not taking medical evidence into account at all.
	The second individual is from Stanley in my constituency and I have known this young lady since she was in her early 20s.

Peter Bottomley: In the hon. Gentleman’s example, was ATOS setting its own procedures or was it following the instructions under the contract?

Kevan Jones: Having seen the form, I think it was according to the contract, and this is where things needs tweaking. We need a special form for people with mental
	health issues, rather than using the generic form for people with other disabilities, too. That is the important point that needs change.
	Miss B, as I will call her, is 36 and a single parent who lives in Stanley in my constituency. She has a very supportive family and receives huge support from her local Sure Start and her local community mental health team. She has been unemployed, suffers from bipolar depression and is on a cocktail of medication. Although everyone has been told not to contact her directly but to contact her mother, ATOS contacted her directly. She lives independently just down the street from her mother, which is good, but everyone has been told to contact the mother because she does not quite understand. When ATOS contacted her with a telephone request for interview, according to her mother it sent her into an absolute panic. If her neighbour had not been there to help her, it would have caused huge problems.
	Miss B went to the interview and failed it, getting no points. She is now having panic attacks, she has had episodes where she has felt suicidal, and without support her child would have been taken into care. She was nearly hospitalised because of the stress. She has now had to wait upwards of eight months for her appeal to be heard, but in the meantime, and not just because of the ESA, her housing benefit has been stopped so she is in debt. It is one thing after another, which is not what someone with severe mental health illness needs and that is why we must refine the system. That woman has been waiting for an appeal for eight months now and, knowing the case as I do, I have no doubt that she will win.
	My final example is Mr J, a 52-year-old who suffers from mental health illness, partly as a result of his separation from his partner a few years ago. He suffers from very severe depression and is on antidepressants. He has tried to help himself by going to cognitive behavioural therapy sessions. In January 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to ask him to attend an ATOS interview, which caused him to withdraw from his treatment programme. That was not good for him. Very insensitively, ATOS then rang him on Christmas eve to organise the appointment. Again, despite the fact that a lot of medical evidence was presented, ATOS did not take any of it into account.
	There is another thing that ATOS is getting completely wrong, or at least has an inconsistent approach to. Mr J took his son, who is one of his key supporters, along with him and asked whether he could make representations on his behalf. He was told no. In other cases, people have taken their community psychiatric nurses with them only for them to be told to sit outside the interview while the individual goes in. ATOS is being inconsistent in its approach and is clearly not taking on board any of the medical evidence that is put forward. Mr J appealed and, as in the first case I cited, the appeal went through on the basis that the medical evidence presented was good enough. What is ATOS doing? What concerns me about these cases is the cost not just to the individual but to the health service and the local NHS.
	Let me highlight the findings of the survey I mentioned and read some quotes from it. In response to a question about whether medical evidence was taken into account, someone said that it was “not even looked at.” Another response was:
	“Not at all and there was a great deal including an advocate (myself) attending the Medical. Nothing that I said”
	seemed to make a difference. Yet another:
	“Generally, clients feel that mental health is not taken into consideration”
	and is not being focused in the way that physical disabilities are.
	“Most clients believed that their own medical evidence had been completely disregarded”
	at the interviews they attended. Another issue that was commonly raised was how little time it took—less than 15 minutes in most cases.
	Question 6 asked about the impact on individuals. Let me quote some of the answers directly:
	“Despair. Resignment to the cruelty dished out”
	by the system.
	“Very distressed, anxious, scared”.
	“Very stressed, confused, angry and frightened as you can imagine, these people are already existing below the poverty line”
	and this increases stress levels.
	Judging by those examples, the system needs to be changed. It is inefficient, it is causing huge problems for individuals, and is also costing the system more. What we need to do, possibly through the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, is come up with a specific work test for people with mental health issues, and recognise that individuals have to be supported.
	Now I am going to throw my notes away—I thought long and hard last night about whether to do this—and talk about my own mental health problems. 1n 1996, I suffered quite a deep depression related to work and other things going on in my life. This is the first time I have spoken about this. Indeed, some people in my family do not know about what I am going to talk about today. Like a lot of men, I tried to deal with it myself—you do not talk to people. I hope you realise, Mr Speaker, that what I am saying is very difficult for me.
	I have thought very long and hard about this and did not actually decide to do this until I just put my notes down. It is hard, because you do not always recognise the symptoms. It creeps up very slowly. Also, we in politics tend to think that if we admit to fault or failure we will be looked on disparagingly by the electorate and our peers. Whether my having made this admission will mean that the possibility of any future ministerial career is blighted for ever for me, I do not know. I was a Minister in the previous Government and I think that most people on both sides of the House thought I did a reasonable job.
	We have to talk about mental health issues in this place, including people in the House who have personal experience of it. As I have said, I thought long and hard last night about doing this and I did not come to a decision until I put my notes down just now. Whether it affects how people view me, I do not know; and frankly I do not care because if it helps other people who have depression or who have suffered from it in the past, then, good.
	Politics is a rough old game, and I have no problem with that. Indeed, I am, perhaps, one of the roughest at times, but having to admit that you need help sometimes is not a sign of weakness. I also want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that we need to do more here to support Members with mental health issues. In terms of
	occupational health, we have an excellent individual in Dr Madan, who understands mental health issues very well. I know of only one other Member who has suffered from mental health problems because a colleague on the Labour Benches has spoken to me about her mental health issues and depression, but it is important to get the message across to individuals that if they are having problems they can go and see Dr Madan and her team.
	May I also highlight to you, Mr Speaker, the problems that Dr Madan has with getting funding for treatment afterwards? The hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned drugs, and they are part of the answer, but they were not the solution for me. Things like cognitive behavioural therapy can be far more effective. As I learned over many years, it is about how you think. Dr Madan raised an issue with me regarding an individual for whom she was trying to get funding, but the House authorities were not prepared to do it. If she comes to you, Mr Speaker, regarding any Member who wishes to have mental health support you have to say yes because it is not easy for Members of Parliament to go to their own GP or local community to talk about these issues. Sometimes, it is perhaps better for them to have treatment and find solutions here rather than in their constituency. That is a plea to you, Mr Speaker, and I would be grateful if you took that on board.
	As I have said, I do not know whether I have done the right thing. Perhaps I will go home tonight and think I have not, but I think I have. I hope that it does not change anyone’s view of me. Most people might think, “Christ, if it can happen to him, it might happen to anybody.” On that note, let me put on record my thanks for the opportunity to debate this issue. Let us go out and champion this issue.
	Finally, let me say to every hon. Member present and to those who are not present that although being an MP is a great privilege—I have always thought that; it is a great thing that I love—it also has its stresses. Unless someone has done it, they do not know what those stresses can be personally, in terms of family, and in terms of what is expected of us in the modern technological age. A little more understanding from some parts of the media and some constituents about the pressures on the modern-day MP would be very valuable.

Charles Walker: It is absolutely fantastic to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I was a researcher here in the early 1990s and a few Members present were here at that time. They will remember the debates about homosexuality. There were some discriminations, as there still are, in relation to homosexuality, and people were beginning to feel very uncomfortable about that. Many colleagues came to this place to take part in those debates, and they would say, “These discriminations against homosexuals are disgraceful, but I am not gay myself.” They did not want to be perceived as gay because they had an interest in those matters.
	I am delighted to say that I have been a practising fruitcake for 31 years. It was 31 years ago at St John’s Wood tube station—I remember it vividly—that I was visited by obsessive compulsive disorder. Over the past 31 years, it has played a fairly significant part in my life. On occasions it is manageable and on occasions it becomes quite difficult. It takes one to some quite dark
	places. I operate to the rule of four, so I have to do everything in evens. I have to wash my hands four times and I have to go in and out of a room four times. My wife and children often say I resemble an extra from “Riverdance” as I bounce in and out of a room, switching lights off four times. Woe betide me if I switch off a light five times because then I have to do it another three times. Counting becomes very important.
	I leave crisp and biscuit packets around the house because if I go near a bin, my word, I have to wash my hands on numerous occasions. There has to be an upside to a mental health problem. I thought that the upside would be that I would not get colds, because apparently if you wash your hands a lot, you don’t get colds, but I wash my hands hundreds of times a day and I get extremely cheesed off when I end up with a heavy cold.
	OCD is like internal Tourette’s: sometimes it is benign and often it can be malevolent. It is like someone inside one’s head just banging away. One is constantly striking deals with oneself. Sometimes these are quite ridiculous and on some occasions they can be rather depressing and serious. I have been pretty healthy for five years but just when you let your guard down this aggressive friend comes and smacks you right in the face. I was on holiday recently and I took a beautiful photograph of my son carrying a fishing rod—hon. Members may know that I love fishing. There was my beautiful son carrying a fishing rod, I was glowing with pride and then the voice started, “If you don’t get rid of that photograph, your child will die.” You fight those voices for a couple or three hours and you know that you really should not give into them because they should not be there and it ain’t going to happen, but in the end, you are ain’t going to risk your child, so one gives into the voices and then feels pretty miserable about life.
	But hey, there are amusing times as well. I do not feel particularly sorry for myself, because my skirmish with mental health is minor. There are people who live with appalling mental health problems day in, day out, which is why I when I became an MP, I regarded it as a wonderful opportunity to try to help them. I hope that I have an insight into some of their pain and agony and the battles that they go through on a daily basis. Many people are frightened and feel excluded.
	My first year and a half in Parliament was absolutely appalling. It was very, very difficult. My constituents thought that I was a jolly fellow—that is how I came across—but I remember sitting in my office going through my post. A book arrived with a letter saying, “Managing your Tourette’s”. I thought, “Oh my word, someone has spotted me on television. I’m done for. They’ve sent me a book and I’ll be outed in the newspapers: ‘Walker’s a loony’”. My constituents will turn their backs on me, my association will throw its hands in the air, and my children will be chased through the playground.” I sat in cold terror for 10 minutes, wondering how I would navigate my way through this. I then picked up the letter and realised that it was a circular that it had gone to all 650 MPs, so I took great comfort from the fact that probably 50 others were having the same emotions as me.
	We can talk about medical solutions to mental health problems, and of course medicine has a part to play. In reality, however, society has the biggest part to play. This is society’s problem, and we need to step back from
	our own prejudices, park them and embrace people with mental health problems. You only get one chance at life. You get about 80 years-ish. If you have severe mental health problems, you get about 65. Can you imagine going through your whole life feeling miserable, excluded, discriminated against, with little hope? I cannot. I have a wonderful vocation, I have a loving family, and I have a comfortable lifestyle, so I know, even when things are bad, they will get better, but a lot of people are not in that position, and we need to reach out to them.
	I am really excited about the speech by the hon. Member for North Durham—I am very excited about that—and I am excited about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) secured this debate. We are making progress and moving in the right direction. We will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in a few moments—or hours—about his private Member’s Bill. Many colleagues in the House are taking part in the debate. I think that some colleagues would like to be here but, again, if they are here discussing mental health, some people might feel that they have a problem. Look, it is a not a problem, it really is not: let’s get over it guys, and move on.
	Media reporting has improved and we do not often see headlines such as “Frank Luno”, which was totally indefensible. The media are beginning to get on board, because there are many people in the media who suffer from mental health problems. As the hon. Member for North Durham alluded to at the beginning of his speech, who are these people out there? They are doctors, nurses, teachers and soldiers; they are all around us. Why would the hon. Gentleman’s constituents think any differently of him now than they did 20 minutes ago? In fact, they will respect him a great deal more. Why would my constituents think any differently of me now than they did 10 minutes ago? Those who disliked me will continue to dislike me; those who like me will continue to like me; and those who were slightly agonistic could go either way.
	Here we are, having a great, great debate. The all-party group on mental health is going from strength to strength and, for the first time, I am feeling really positive and very happy. I am not going to speak for much longer, but I want to say two things. We need to sort out independent mental health advocacy for people who face incarceration or are on community treatment orders. Access to representation is patchy across the country, and we need to sort that out, because we cannot lock up people who do not receive proper advocacy or constrain their liberties without proper advocacy.
	We also need to address Criminal Records Bureau checks under the heading “Any other relevant information” that are entirely at the discretion of the chief constable. I am aware of a number of people who have had mental health problems and have been detained for a short while. The police became involved, because they took those individuals into detention or to hospital. They go for a job perhaps as a counsellor or working in the charitable sector. They have a clean record but under “Any other relevant information” the chief constable can say, “We are aware that this person was detained for a mental health problem at this institution. We are not aware that they are a threat to adults or children”. That
	is that. That is the end of the matter, because we recognise that there is stigma and discrimination. I am afraid that in our ultra risk-averse world, that is a career death sentence for those people. We need to sort that out.
	I join the hon. Member for North Durham in saying that I am not frightened any more. Like him, I am pretty middle-aged, and I do not care what people think of me any more. When people come up to me and say, “Mr Walker, we think you an absolute rotter and so-and-so”, with OCD, I would probably have said a lot worse to myself 20 minutes earlier. It is not such a big deal. I am not frightened any more. It is a really good place to be, and we need to ensure that many hundreds of thousands can be in that place as well. Not being frightened is a really good thing. Hon. Gentlemen, hon. Ladies and friends: rock and roll, as they say. Thank you.

Jim Shannon: I am privileged to be in the Chamber to hear some of the speeches that have been made, including those by the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for North Durham (Mr Jones). It is a great privilege to hear what they said. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on raising the matter in the Chamber. She said that everyone has mental health issues; I suppose it is a matter of how they deal with that and control it. We all have a breaking point. I hope that I never reach that breaking point, and that others do not do so either.
	As an elected representative, in my interaction with constituents in my office, I see very clearly how people deal with depression. As the hon. Member for Strangford, I wish to express views on behalf of my constituents, ever mindful of the fact that health in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. However, the debate is on mental health generally, so the issues in Northern Ireland are every bit as relevant as those in Broxbourne, North Durham, Loughborough and anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Every day I deal with those issues, whether through employment and support allowance appeals or disability living allowance appeals, or by interacting with people and the way in which they deal with their benefits.
	An issue that has been highlighted in the Chamber is the difficulties that can arise. That was an issue before the economic downturn, but it is a bigger issue today, because people find it harder to deal with the economic and financial realities that face them, which compounds their problems. In all honesty, over the past year or 18 months, I have seen greater need in people who suffer from depression, as they have had to deal with issues with which they have never had to deal before. We have debated many great issues in the Chamber in the two years in which I have been an MP, but this issue is certainly one of the most important.
	I want to deal with two issues. I want to talk about mental health from the perspective of Northern Ireland, and I also want to touch on an issue the hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned when she talked about the armed forces. There are problems for our soldiers and service personnel returning from the battlefield, whether Afghanistan or Iraq, because their memories of those conflicts do not finish when they get off the plane or boat after returning home; they are still with them many years after the conflict. I feel strongly about that for those who returned from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Good mental health should be a priority for us all, as every Member who has spoken so far has indicated. In Northern Ireland we have also made it a priority. However, Northern Ireland—I say this with respect—has been underfunded for many years, owing to direct Government reasons and others. The figures show that mental health is a greater issue in Northern Ireland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. People would say that that is perhaps because of the 30 years of the troubles, which I think is probably true. When someone is under pressure or stress and worried about whether they will live or die, they turn to drink, drugs or other things, and that affects their lifestyle. Ultimately, a great many people in Northern Ireland suffer from depression and mental health issues because of our country’s past. I am glad to say that we have moved on. We now have a partnership Government and we are working together to ensure that there is a future for everyone, and that in the future there is a lessened threat of terrorism.
	The British Medical Association in Northern Ireland has done significant research on mental health there. When the hon. Member for Loughborough introduced the debate she mentioned a number of the points that are also in the BMA’s report, so I could not help but wonder whether she had perhaps seen the same report. It contained a number of points that she referred to and commented on. I think that the reason those points are so similar to what she said is that the same issues are just as relevant in Northern Ireland as they are in Loughborough and the rest of the United Kingdom.
	I would like to touch on how we can improve the situation. I know that the Minister will have a detailed and helpful response to the debate. To start with, it is a taboo subject. I think that the Government and policy makers must strive to ensure that the stigma, which Members have talked about, and the clear discrimination and fear that surround mental health are eliminated or addressed by focusing on promotion, education, prevention and early intervention. Those are the four headlines the BMA puts forward in its suggestions. There is clearly a work force planning problem that, in some occasions, occurs simply because of reductions in staffing levels. There are a number of things we need to do, and perhaps the Minister, when he responds, can tell us how the issue of mental health will work within the staffing restrictions and assure us that that concern will be taken on board.
	The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government made a commitment to work for a healthier people and identified mental health as a priority. It also set out targets to try to address the issues. The person who suffers from mental health problems is only part of the problem. When a constituent with mental health problems comes to my office, as they do to the offices of other Members, there is not just one person sitting in a chair in front of me, because they are usually accompanied by someone else; there is a family circle, children, mums and dads and everyone involved. While one person might suffer from mental health problems, half a dozen people could be affected by the ripples.
	I am also concerned about teenagers who suffer from depression. Between 10% and 20% of our teenagers will suffer from depression at some point in that short period of their life. I believe that there has to be recognition of mental illnesses, notably depression, and it means that we need to look beyond good mental health and at
	preventing mental health problems and ensuring early intervention. Many personal issues affect mental health, including drink, drugs, working conditions, homelessness, poverty, unemployment and risk-taking behaviour, whether smoking or unsafe sex, and those issues affect many of the people who come to my office with these problems.
	Let us address these problems first by strengthening individuals, by addressing emotional resilience and by promoting self-esteem, life skills, coping skills and communication skills. We also have to strengthen communities. Those are the issues I feel are important. That means addressing the issue of social inclusion, improving neighbourhood environments, which make a difference. In relation to teenagers, we also have to try to address the anti-bullying strategies in schools. Those are important because bullying is one of the things that lead to young people having these depression issues.
	We also have to reduce the structural barriers to mental health, which means access to education and meaningful employment. I know that that everyone will agree with that, but at the end of the day we need to have a strategy in place to address mental health issues, and that is what we are seeking to do through this debate. We all agree that there is absolutely no doubt that we all support the issue and the vulnerable people affected, people who we meet every day and who need real help.
	Suicide in the community is a great worry for us all as elected representatives. Every one of us will have dealt with families, with people whom we know personally or with people from families that we know personally who have lost loved ones—who took their own lives because they felt that there was no way forward. They were coming off the back of terrible depression or terrible pressure, and did not know where they could go next.

Kevan Jones: We have been talking about the voluntary sector, and in my constituency there is a very good organisation, which also came about as a result of a personal tragedy for the individual—a woman called Shirley Smith, who runs If U Care Share. Her 19-year-old son died, and it is about young people and talking about those issues. She goes into schools, youth groups and football clubs to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should have a national strategy on that to ensure that it is part of the curriculum as well?

Jim Shannon: Yes, I do. When a constituent of mine died in a car accident on a Sunday night, I went to her house on the Monday night, and her father just wanted to speak and to talk about his daughter. That is the issue. On many occasions, it is just a matter of having someone to talk to, someone who can lend a sympathetic ear when it is needed most, so I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
	Back in 2005, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who had some responsibility for health, the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), set up a task force to develop a suicide prevention strategy for Northern Ireland. It is paying some dividends in relation to a decrease in the number of suicides, but the number is still at a very high level.
	Other Members have touched on dementia and Alzheimer’s, and after wearing my hat as a councillor for 26 years and as an Assembly Member for 12 years, before being privileged to enter this House, I must note
	that the number of people with Alzheimer’s and dementia is greater today than ever before. I do not know the reasons why, but they are real, the statistics prove it and we have an issue there as well.
	On employment and support allowance appeals, the hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about those who have mental health issues, because when they go to an ESA appeal the issue is clearly not a physical one, because physically they can walk about, move their hands, brush their hair—if they have any, unlike me—or put a hat on their head. They are asked whether they can do those things, but those are not the questions that a person with mental illness needs to answer. They need to answer the questions, “Are you moody?”, “Do you fall out with people?”, “Are you aggressive?”, “How do you cope with difficult situations?”, “Do you start a task that you cannot finish?” Those are the questions for a person who is depressed, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the appeals panel—the chair and those who deal with such tribunals—need to understand those issues better, so that an appeal can be presented in a way that people understand.
	It has been stated that everyone has mental health issues. No one is immune, and although stress is greater among the poor and the unemployed it applies throughout society. Good mental health is crucial to the overall well-being of an individual, of societies and of countries.
	In Northern Ireland there are about 150 suicides each year: 41% are single males, and 22% are males between 25 and 34 years old. Some 50% of suicides in the UK involve psychiatric patients, and one reason is a loss of contact; in that context I want to talk about soldiers, about a loss of contact by the health service and about treatment non-compliance, whereby people do not take the medication that doctors give them.
	Figures for the United Kingdom as a whole indicate that depression accounts for about 60% of the country’s main health problems, alcoholism about 10%, Alzheimer’s about 8% and severe stress about 6%. That leads me on to that second issue, which is to do with our soldiers.
	The week before last I had the opportunity to go to Cyprus with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Some MPs in the Chamber will be members of that great scheme, some will be aware of it and some will have been members in the past. We have an opportunity to meet soldiers and to hear about strategic issues so that we can present them to the House in an informed and knowledgeable way.
	When we were in Cyprus two weeks ago, we noted its importance from an Army and a strategic point of view, but we had not realised that it is halfway to Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. There is a new scheme in Cyprus whereby soldiers returning home from Afghanistan come through a so-called decompression centre in Akrotiri; last year 30,000 did so. They call it decompression because it helps them to unwind after what they have experienced in Afghanistan over the previous few months. The sun is usually shining, which makes a big difference. They have a chance to shower, to have their kit completely dry-cleaned, and to have a good meal. They have access to mobile phones, and they are able to speak to their doctor, padre or commanding officer. They have a chance to get back into normal life—to step down and get themselves ready to go back home to their family.
	The work done for our soldiers in the Akrotiri centre, which cost £4.5 million to build, gets them ready for life back home.
	Those soldiers have seen in Afghanistan the most horrific things that we cannot begin to visualise. They have seen friends and colleagues killed or injured, some with life-changing injuries. We know of those people because we have met some of them, and we are humbled when we do so. The bullets and the bombs are intermingled with the stress, the trauma, the bad memories and the nightmares—those are all part of the things they have to face long after they leave the Army. While the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force look after their personnel, the forces associations do likewise. We recognised from our time in Akrotiri, as we have in our constituencies, that once soldiers are out of the Army they are often distanced from those associations too. The Royal British Legion might not always be at hand for them. They might have no friends or their marriage might have split up. They might turn to drink and drugs, but that will give only temporary relief and they are still on their own. I am mindful that defence is not the Minister’s portfolio, but I hope that when he replies he will consider the welfare of our soldiers who have returned from Afghanistan, are not in the forces any more because they have left or retired, and are now apart from the ritual and discipline that they were once very much part of.
	Every one of us will be aware of constituents who have lost control because of the memories and nightmares of what they have seen. Whenever the memories flood back and the flashbacks reappear, they relive what they have come through, and then they face their demons alone. We need to face up to this issue confronting those who have served, and are serving, in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The health service needs to address it UK-wide, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The plight of our soldiers should be a priority for this Government, as I know that it will be. I commend the motion to the House and hope that Members will support it.

Paul Burstow: There is no health without mental health. In that simple statement I sum up the coalition Government’s approach to mental health.
	In contributing to this important debate, I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), among others, on tirelessly pursuing the case for having this debate on the Floor of the House. It is one of the rare debates that we have on this subject, and it clearly airs the issues that are so important to so many of our fellow citizens.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that it was a privilege to have the job—the vocation—of being a Member of Parliament, and I could not agree with him more. Sometimes, that privilege involves the surprise that we can still experience in the Chamber when debates are genuinely authentic and when people speak from the heart. I thank him for his candour and honesty; we need more of that. The chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, talked, with humour and much besides, about his experience with obsessive
	compulsive disorder. Anyone living and struggling with such conditions, who has not perhaps reached the point of wanting to talk about it, will feel huge respect for both Members for bringing the attention of the House to these matters. They have made us all wake up to something that we ought to know, but that we too often forget. That is that mental health is not a “them and us” game; it is about us—all of us. It touches us all in one way or another.
	I am probably not going to be able to do justice to every contribution in the debate, not least those that I have not yet heard, but I assure hon. Members that I will continue to listen throughout the remainder of the debate, and that if any issues arise that I have not covered in this speech, I will write to the Members concerned to address those points.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some important points about the support for our veterans, and for our armed forces more generally. This Government have done a lot in that regard—not least the commissioning by the Prime Minister of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to produce his report, “Fighting Fit: a mental health plan for servicemen and veterans”. The report deals with many of these issues, and the Government take them, and the action that they require, very seriously.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on the report, but would the Minister acknowledge that it built on a lot of the work done by the previous Government, which I was responsible for?

Paul Burstow: I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on these issues today, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s question in that spirit. He makes a fair point. This is about building on what is working, and ensuring that it can work even better. The work done by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire has certainly accelerated the pace.
	When the Deputy Prime Minister and I launched the mental health strategy last year, we recognised the need to tackle the root causes of mental illness as well as ensuring that community and acute services provide timely treatment and care. We placed a strong emphasis on recovery from a human, rather than just a medical, perspective. We also made it clear that delivering significant improvements in people’s health and well-being requires parity of esteem between physical and mental health.
	I know that some hon. Members are concerned that not enough emphasis has been placed on acute and in-patient care. Let me be clear. Our plans to provide a safe, modern, effective mental health service give equal emphasis to the full range of services, from public mental health and prevention through to forensic mental health services. This is about people receiving high quality, appropriate care when they need it. If services can intervene early—the case for that has already been powerfully made—so that mental health problems can be managed in the community before more serious problems develop, that should result in acute in-patient care being made available more quickly for those who need it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned the concerns raised by the Association of Chief Police Officers about places of safety. In partnership with the Home Office and the police, we are examining
	how to ensure that health services are properly commissioned in custodial situations. I would be only too happy to meet her and the ACPO mental health lead to discuss those issues further.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister look carefully into the circumstances of people who die either in police custody or in a mental health institution as a result of a mental health issue, to determine whether adequate forms of inquest and inquiry exist, and whether adequate lessons are being learned from the experiences? In view of what is going on in one or two inquests at the moment, I feel that there are some quite serious deficiencies in that area.

Paul Burstow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. May I undertake to write to him about that matter in more detail? It has come up in our work on our suicide prevention strategy in relation to the nature of suicide verdicts, and narrative verdicts in particular, in coroners’ courts. I would be happy to come back to him on that issue.
	In the past year, we have made progress across a broad front. We have committed £400 million to make psychological therapies available for adults of all ages, as well as for people with long-term health conditions and with severe and enduring mental illness. When it comes to our focus on recovery, the latest figures show that 44.4% of those who complete programmes recover and that more achieve lasting improvement. That puts us on track to achieve our target rate of recovery of over 50%.
	Given that we know that the first signs of more than half of all lifelong mental illnesses can be detected in adolescence, we have to go further. That is why the Government are breaking new ground by investing in a new training-led approach to re-equip children and young people’s mental health services to offer a range of psychological therapies. I pay tribute to the leadership shown by YoungMinds. Without its support, we would not have come as far in this area as fast as we have.
	I want to say something about the necessity of achieving the best possible outcomes for people in mental health crisis. Secondary mental health services across the country have made significant changes, both in community and hospital settings, including the provision of alternatives to psychiatric hospital admission. For example, more than 10,000 people with an early diagnosis of psychosis were engaged with early intervention services last year. That is the highest figure ever recorded. The improvements in community-based early intervention services are driving up standards of care, as well as reducing the demand for hospital admissions. I freely acknowledge that there is more to do and I take on board the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made about the need to look at the variability in the accessibility of mental health advocacy.
	The development of recovery-focused services is a critical part of the Government’s strategy. That work is being led by the NHS Confederation’s mental health network and the Centre for Mental Health. They are supporting pilot sites that cover almost half of England and are making the kind of changes that service users have sought for years. The programme has identified 10 key changes to the way in which staff work, the types of services that are provided and the culture of organisations to embed recovery principles into routine practice.
	When I visited the South West London recovery college, I heard powerful personal testimonies from people who were living purposeful and fulfilling lives, and who were living with their illness rather than having to be cured of symptoms or illnesses. It is important that recovery is not just seen in medical terms, but is self-defined. Students at the college learn not only how to manage their condition, but skills to help them back to work and to form new relationships. Some become lecturers at the college themselves. I was told that being called a student, rather than a patient, helped people take control of their recovery, gave them more confidence and, crucially, made them feel normal, as opposed to being treated as a helpless, passive recipient of care.
	Part of a good recovery is the ability to exercise more control over one’s life. In health care, that means that there must be more shared decision making and choice. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned the principle of “no decision about me without me”. Undoubtedly, the any qualified provider policy and tariff reform have a part to play in that.

Adam Afriyie: Many of us recognise that many people who come to our constituency surgeries, perhaps with a housing benefit inquiry or other benefit inquiry, are actually struggling with mental health challenges. It seems to me that the lack of control that results from the way in which Government services are designed can be a great contributing factor to stress and, therefore, to depression. The Minister is speaking about control. Can the design of public services, such as housing benefit and other benefits, be taken into account as a way of relieving the stress on a great number of our constituents?

Paul Burstow: That intervention rather helpfully moves me on to the point that has been made by several hon. Members about Atos. Although it is not my ministerial responsibility, a number of important points have been made about how it operates in particular cases. I will ensure that those points are taken into account by my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I will gladly pass them on.

Stephen Timms: The Minister will know that mental health charities have proposed changes to the mental health descriptors in the work capability assessment for employment and support allowance. There seems to be some delay in implementing those. Will he pick that up in his discussions with his colleagues?

Paul Burstow: I will certainly act as the messenger and pass that point on, as the right hon. Gentleman has requested.
	Stigma has been referred to in this debate. It is undoubtedly one of the biggest barriers to access to mental health services in this country. The Government are determined to reduce the prejudice and discrimination that surround mental health, but we recognise that we cannot do that on our own. That is why Mind and Rethink Mental Illness have developed a major anti-stigma programme called “Time to Change”. That campaign is working and is delivering significant behavioural change across society. That is why the Government are contributing the substantial amount of £16 million up to April 2015.

Matthew Offord: The Minister says that the Government wish to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness, and I accept that. Does he agree that the decision of the Department of Health in 1994 to hold an independent inquiry into every death involving someone who has suffered mental illness or been part of the mental health system continues to perpetuate that stigma?

Paul Burstow: That is an important and challenging point, and I will want to go away and think about what we do. For patient safety, we still need to learn lessons when things go wrong in our system, acknowledge when things have not been done properly and put them right. In that sense, confidential inquiries are an important part of the learning mechanism. One point of frustration that I hear in debates in the House and see in correspondence from hon. Members is the sense that lessons are not learned. As part of our reforms, with the NHS Commissioning Board taking on responsibility for patient safety, we need to ensure that that is not the case in future.
	We are investing £16 million in “Time to Change”, and we were delighted when Comic Relief decided to put in an additional £4 million, one of the biggest grants that it has ever made.
	I wish to make another point that touches on the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and the hon. Member for North Durham. One in five people still think that anyone who has a history of mental health problems should not be allowed to hold public office. How many former Presidents, Prime Ministers or Ministers would have been excluded if that view had been applied? [Hon. Members: “Churchill.”] Precisely. Such a law is as outdated as asylums and as outdated as many of the attitudes that sit behind it. It has to be consigned to the history books just like asylums have been, and under the coalition Government’s watch, it will be. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing a slot for a private Member’s Bill on the subject.
	Looking ahead, although we have made progress there are still big challenges to tackle. Reference has been made to the implementation framework that will be published to support the roll-out of the “No health without mental health” strategy. That framework has been produced in conjunction with five national mental health organisations—Rethink Mental Illness, the NHS Confederation, the Centre for Mental Health, Turning Point and Mind—and many others have been involved.
	We have previously had a very good debate about “Listening to Experience”, Mind’s excellent report on acute and crisis care, and Mind’s policy team have been directly involved in ensuring that the framework delivers on those issues. It will provide a route map for every organisation with contributions to make to improve the nation’s mental health. It will spell out how progress will be made, measured and reported.
	What does success look like? To me, it means more people having access to evidence-based psychological therapists; services intervening earlier, particularly for children and young people; services focusing on recovery and people’s needs and aspirations above all; and service users and carers being at the heart of all aspects of planning and service delivery.
	Today, economists tell us that mental ill health in this country costs £105 billion a year, and that is just in England. If we succeed and put in place the right combination of public health, anti-stigma policies, accessible psychological therapies and excellent community and acute services, we can dramatically reduce that figure. Put another way, if we can deliver the right evidence-based treatment to children and young people so that their conditions do not persist into adulthood, we can prevent as many as two in five of all adult mental health disorders. As a society, we have made huge progress in how we recognise people’s mental illness, but despite that we have not fully accepted that mental health is equal to physical health and that parity of esteem is needed between the problems of the body and the problems of the mind. That is the challenge—

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Burstow: I will.

Julian Lewis: I have waited many years to intervene on a Minister in his final sentence, and I have achieved that today.
	Does the Minister accept, having made a convincing case for people being able to live with their illnesses by being at home, that part of the reassurance that they need to do that is to know that in periods of acute crisis, there will be a bed available for them should it be needed? That should be not only for detained patients but for voluntary patients.

Paul Burstow: One thing I did not say—I was trying to cut down my remarks—was that there is an essential need to give more people the ability to control their health care through crisis plans. Crisis plans are an opportunity for people to make a statement in advance on how they wish to be treated in the event of a mental health episode that requires an intervention from mental health services. We know that when the plans are in place, they make a huge difference to the need for admission, and that they can reduce the length of stay. We need to ensure that there is a sufficiency of beds so that people can get appropriate treatment, but we also need to ensure that there is much more focus on good, community-based intervention at an early stage. Getting that balance right is always difficult for health commissioners to achieve—I know my hon. Friend is struggling with that in his patch at the moment.
	Those are the challenges the NHS faces. They are challenges not just for our health commissioners and providers but, as this debate has clearly demonstrated, for our whole society. We can transform mental health in this country only if we transform our attitudes. This debate plays an important part in that.

Andy Burnham: I begin by giving my apologies to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) for missing the beginning of her speech, and by congratulating the Minister on his excellent and thoughtful speech, to which I can hopefully add something.
	I have high hopes for the debate. I hope it will help us to confront a major paradox: how can a subject that is so central to the big public policy challenges we face as a country—the challenges are not just of public health
	provision, but of worklessness, benefits, the criminal justice system and addiction—still exist on the fringes of our national debate, getting so little airtime and attention. As other hon. Members have acknowledged, the House, sadly, rarely applies itself to mental health. Perhaps that reflects our national stiff-upper-lip tendency not to talk openly about mental health, which in turn might help to explain why our public services are designed for the 20th century rather than the 21st.

John Pugh: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting that we had appreciable mental health legislation in the last Parliament—the Mental Health Act 2007.

Andy Burnham: I am proud of the improvements we made in the last Parliament, but I did not come here today to say that everything the previous Government did was right and wonderful. I will talk a little about those improvements, but given my failure to sing Labour achievements, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing so.
	We are reticent to talk about mental health as much as we should. There is a complacency in the public debate—that is not to make a political point, because it involves hon. Members on both sides of the House. The complacency goes throughout the civil service and the Government. To reflect on my time in government—not just in the Department of Health, but in the Treasury and the Home Office—it is remarkable how few submissions or meetings I had relating to mental health, given that it underlies the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. Indeed, £105 billion is the estimated cost of the full burden of mental health to this country.
	That complacency is not shared by everybody and I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing this debate. We have heard two unbelievably powerful speeches, from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to which I will turn at the end of my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who leads on these matters for the shadow health team, has rightly pointed out how mental health lies under the whole public health challenge. We will soon introduce Labour’s public health review.
	We are beginning to wake up from our complacency. I am leading the debate for the Opposition to show that that comes from the top. We see the mental health challenge as central to health policy. Indeed, I made a point of making my first speech on returning as shadow Health Secretary on the subject of rethinking mental health in the 21st century at the Centre for Social Justice.
	I must be honest: I shared the complacency about the mental health debate, or perhaps did not give it enough attention, but two things changed that when I was a Health Minister. First, I spent a day work-shadowing an assertive outreach team in Easington. I will never forget what one of the team told me about the early ’90s, when the mines closed and GP referrals for support were piling up on clinic desks, but there simply was no support to offer people. She said that that lay behind the social collapse in those mining communities. People facing difficult times were given no help.
	A second thing made me think differently. When I became Health Secretary in June 2009, I inherited Lord Bradley’s report into mental health problems and learning
	disabilities in the criminal justice system. I will never forget sitting in my office at Richmond house reading that about 70% of young people in the criminal justice system have an undiagnosed or untreated mental health problem. If that is not truly shocking to every Member and does not make us do something, frankly nothing will. That was the moment that changed how I thought, and I have tried to follow it through ever since.
	I mentioned that we had a public service designed for the 20th century, rather than the 21st century, and I want to illustrate that point with reference to my own constituency. The world that gave birth to the NHS was a very different place. When the NHS was set up, Leigh, like Easington, was a physically dangerous place to live and work in. Working underground exposed people to coal dust, explosions and accidents, and people had no choice but to lock arms, look out for each other and face the dangers together—that is how it was—and that spirit of solidarity was carried over into the streets above.
	Like many places in this country, then, Leigh in the ’50s was a physically dangerous place but emotionally secure, because people pulled together. In the 21st century, however, that has completely reversed. We now live in a physically safe society—our work does not generally expose us to dangers—but it is emotionally far less secure than it was for most of the last century. The 21st century has changed the modern condition. We are all living longer, more stressful and isolated lives, and have to learn to cope with huge and constant change. Twentieth-century living demands levels of emotional and mental resilience that our parents and grandparents never needed, yet the NHS does not reflect that new reality; essentially, it remains a post-war production-line model focused on episodic physical care—the stroke, the hip replacement, the cataract—rather than the whole person. That is the issue to confront.
	The demands of this society and the ageing society require a change in how we provide health and social care. We need a whole-person approach that combines not only the physical but the mental and social, if we are to give people the quality of life that we desire for our own families. That one in four people will experience a serious mental health problem makes this an issue for all families and people in the country. It also means that mental health must move from the margins to the centre of the NHS.
	I shall say a couple of things about that necessary culture change. How can it be that an issue that causes so much suffering and costs our society so much still accounts for only a fraction of the NHS budget? It cannot be right. We also have to consider the separateness of mental health within the NHS. This has deep social roots—the asylum, the separate place where people with mental health problems were treated, the accompanying stigma and suspicion about what went on behind those four walls. Essentially, we still have the same system in the NHS, with separate organisations—mental health trusts—providing services on separate premises. That maintains the sense of a divide between the two systems and raises a huge health inequalities issue.
	The wonderful briefing that Mind, Rethink and others have prepared for this debate contains this startling statistic: on average, people with severe mental health problems die 20 years earlier than those without. What an unbelievable statistic! Why is that? It is partly—not
	completely—explained by the separateness within our system. If someone is labelled a mental health patient, they are treated in the mental health system, and consequently their physical health needs are neglected.

Andrea Leadsom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, right from the very start, the way in which a baby’s brain develops—whether development is healthy, through a loving bond, or not—can have profound implications for future physical health, and therefore life expectancy? It starts as early as that.

Andy Burnham: I completely agree, and obviously that was one of the major conclusions of the Field report, which the hon. Lady’s Government commissioned. The problem is not just the separateness of the system, although that is one of the factors; rather, it starts much earlier. We need to take that broad view.
	More co-location of acute care and mental health care within the same hospital would be a good thing to encourage. We heard on the radio this morning about the RAID—rapid assessment interface and discharge—service in Birmingham, which is an excellent example of that and something we need to follow. That is part of the culture change we need in the NHS. The other part of that change is that practitioners dealing with mental health, particularly GPs, at the primary care level, should not just reach first for medical interventions, rather than social or psychological interventions. However, I am afraid that that is what we do. Let us look at these, more startling statistics. In 2009, the NHS issued 39.1 million prescriptions for anti-depressants—there was a big jump during the financial crisis, towards the end of the last decade. That figure represented a 95% increase on the decade, from the 20.2 million prescriptions issued in 1998. Were all of those 40 million prescriptions necessary? Of course they were not.
	Prompted by my north-west colleague, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), let me pick up the point about Labour’s successes. We did address some of these issues. The improving access to psychological therapies programme is something I am very proud of taking forward as Secretary of State, because it began to give GPs an alternative to anti-depressants and medication to refer people towards. That was an important development, and—credit where it is due—it was Lord Richard Layard who made such an incredible change, by pushing so determinedly for that programme.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Too often GPs reach for medicine when they should be reaching for counselling. They should be offering a more supportive environment, but when we get high-speed GPs with little time to talk to patients, they tend to prescribe medicines when they ought to be doing something else. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go a lot further than we already have?

Andy Burnham: I completely agree. I do a lot of work shadowing, and I recently shadowed a GP. What amazed me was how many of the people coming through his door were the people who also come through our doors on a Friday and Saturday. They are not necessarily looking for something to take to the chemists; they are
	actually just crying out for help, in one way or another, with a problem they are struggling with. That GP was very good and did not prescribe, but referred lots of people to the IAPT service, as I sat there with him. However, he said that across Coventry, where he was based, many others were not doing the same.

Chris Ruane: The Minister mentioned the number of prescriptions that have been issued. I received a parliamentary answer a couple of days ago which said that in 1991 there were 9 million prescriptions. The Minister mentioned the figure of 42 million, but from 2010 to 2011 the number went up by 4 million. In the years before that the increase was usually 2 million a year, but in one year the figure increased by 10%, or 4 million. When I asked the Minister what his assessment was of the reason for those increases, there was no conclusive answer. We must get to the bottom of why these prescriptions are being issued and why they have gone up by 500% in a 20-year period.

Andy Burnham: We must. Perhaps I am about to make more of a political point, but as has been mentioned so eloquently today by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), although the trend is upwards—that is happening come what may: I mentioned the financial crisis, during which the rate has jumped up, including in our time in government—the cumulative effect of some of the benefits changes on some of the most vulnerable members of society, coupled with the withdrawal of social care support by councils, means that, right now, some people out there are suffering very badly indeed. That is part of the explanation of the worrying figures that my hon. Friend has just given the House. The Government need to have a look at what is happening out there and whether or not some people are struggling with mental health problems because of the extra stress that other factors, particularly financial, are putting upon them.
	I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the improving access to psychological therapies programme, but I hear that waiting times for it are increasing in parts of the country where GPs face much longer referral times. Indeed, a Mind survey of 2011 said that 30% of GPs were unaware of services to which they could refer patients, beyond medication. That tells us that we still have quite a long way to go. IAPT needs protecting and nurturing; it needs to come with a national direction in the operating framework. In the new and changing NHS world, we cannot allow it to be simply whittled away. More broadly, we need to look carefully at commissioning and find out whether GPs have the right skills to commission properly for mental health. We need to consider what the precise commissioning arrangements for mental health are, as there is still some confusion out there about them.

Paul Burstow: One of the key aspects of the NHS Commissioning Board’s work in authorising clinical commissioning groups will be to assess their capacity to commission in mental health. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Royal College of General Practitioners is currently exploring what the extra year of education and training will involve, as we move forward to ensuring that mental health is part of it. I think it is a very important innovation.

Andy Burnham: I welcome what the Minister has said, but I say clearly to him that we are going to be vigilant about this. We do not want to see things slipping backwards, as we fear they may well do under this NHS reorganisation.
	The hon. Member for Strangford made an important point about service personnel. I would like to pay tribute to the organisation Combat Stress, which has done a wonderful job—voluntarily, I think, for many years—giving some help and hope to people who come back here only to find that the statutory services are not providing anything for them. We have to absorb what it has done and the changes it has made into the mainstream to provide much better support. It is beginning to happen, but there is further to go.
	On benefits appeals, I echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. As he said, the number of employment and support allowance cases going to appeal is ridiculous. In 2009-10, the first full year of the ESA regime, 70,535 cases went to appeal at a cost of £19.8 million. In 2010-11, there were 176,567 cases at a cost of £42.2 million. If the Government want to cut waste from the benefit system, they have to get a grip on that. What we find is that 38% of cases—almost four in 10—are overturned on appeal; those cases should not have to go to appeal. My hon. Friend also mentioned the human cost. The financial cost is bad enough, but the stress that people with mental health problems are put through as they go through that process is, in many cases, unbearable. The Minister really needs to talk to his Department for Work and Pensions colleagues to encourage them to get a grip on this important problem. The Atos system is simply not working; it is actually making life a lot harder for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Ministers need to look urgently at it.
	Let me conclude with a point about stigma. I have picked up from today’s debate the fact that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is bringing forward a private Member’s Bill along the lines of the Bill introduced in the other place by Lord Stevenson, to whom this House should pay tribute. It is wonderful to hear that the hon. Gentleman will introduce that private Member’s Bill. Currently, a person who has had a serious breakdown and has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 is barred from being an MP, a juror, a school governor or a company director. What message does that send out? It says that recovery is not possible—a message that we might have put out about cancer in the ’50s or ’60s: “Once you have had it, it is a black mark; that’s it, you’re finished.” We urgently need to change that. Today’s debate has probably achieved some change. The Minister indicated his full support for the private Member’s Bill and I can pledge the full support of the Opposition for it. We wish the hon. Gentleman all good luck with it.
	I think that today’s debate can begin to change social attitudes in the broader debate on mental health in this country. For the reasons I have set out, I think our debate has been historic, but we have a long way to go. When the Norwegian Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevikhad to take some time off, he publicly admitted that it was for depression. That was the reason he gave. Imagine a Prime Minister doing that! But he did so, and he changed the culture in Norway. Moreover, he went on to be re-elected and to become Norway’s longest-serving
	non-Labour Prime Minister since the second world war. That constituted incredible bravery and political leadership, and I think that we have seen two more examples of those qualities today in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for Broxbourne. That is the kind of leadership that changes social attitudes to mental health. Both Members deserve enormous credit for what they have said today, and I think that both have taken a major step towards changing the political debate.
	I believe that we must all go back to first principles. I mentioned the start of the NHS. In 1948, the World Health Organisation defined health as
	“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
	Whatever differences we may have about precisely how we should construct the NHS, I think that today Members in all parts of the House can unite behind that definition, with the emphasis on prevention and well-being. I think that we can all commit ourselves to making major changes in the way in which mental health is seen in the House of Commons, the Government and the country, and begin to create a system of care for the 21st century that recognises the difficult, stressful lives that people are leading and gives them support when they need it so that they can fulfil their potential.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Given that 19 Members wish to catch the eye of the Chair, it would be beneficial if each of them could aim to speak for about eight minutes. I hope that that will make it possible for everyone to contribute.

John Pugh: Let me begin by commending those who have spoken about their own problems today. I assure them that they have done their prospects no harm whatsoever. They have risen appreciably in the esteem of the House, although whether that is the key to promotion I do not know.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the use of language is very important when it comes to mental health. I do not consider it to be a problem. My own experience has made me stronger. I think we should be careful about how we use language: we should not describe mental health as a problem, because it is not.

John Pugh: I think that the expression used nowadays is “issue”.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and I would probably agree that it is an experience.

John Pugh: We will settle for “experience”, then.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on introducing the debate, although she omitted to mention the Mental Health Act 2007, over which the House laboured long and hard to, I hope, some good effect.
	In the 18th century, it was possible to cross the river to Bedlam and gawp at people gesticulating, ranting, performing odd rituals, talking to no one in particular, exhibiting delusory beliefs in their own power, or expressing paranoid fears about their foes. The nearest 21st-century equivalent is probably Prime Minister’s Question Time. [Laughter.] That is not an entirely facetious point. The dividing line between robust mental health and mental illness is, in fact, a fine one. Statistics show that the bulk of people of working age who either report or are diagnosed with mental health problems are not, in general, those who suffer from the terrible scourge of schizophrenia. The hallucinations and delusions often associated with that disease currently affect less than 1% of the population, and are treated more benignly and more effectively than ever before. Moreover, numbers are not substantially on the increase.
	Most mental health problems occur when the anxieties, the fears, the stresses and the dark moods to which we are all prone become insupportable, prolonged and disabling, and the individual is no longer able to cope in any ordinary sense but breaks down and loses control, social capacity and, sometimes, insight into his or her condition. That is on the increase: it is the major mental health challenge that we face.
	Mental health is a genuine continuum. The mentally ill do not have viruses, germs, cellular patterns or physical impairments that the well do not have. They have the same gamut of emotions that we all have—often exaggerated, accentuated or uncontrollable, but in no way unique or uncommon. We all possess a shared vulnerability to mental health issues which could be described as a tendency to neurosis, managed with differing degrees of success at different times in our lives. That is why I took issue with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Loughborough.
	There is a nugget of truth in the American belief that we could all benefit from an element of psychiatry. As I have said, we share a common vulnerability, and for a variety of reasons—fairly complex in many cases—one in four, or one in six, citizens falls victim to that vulnerability. We have learnt not to be too judgmental about those who do, and not to stigmatise them. We recognise that the vulnerability they display is often a product of circumstance, and that it is as frequently related to desirable traits—empathy and sensitivity, for instance—as to undesirable ones such as self-obsession or lack of self-control. However, although that recognition is now widespread, it does not eradicate stigma, nor does calling everybody “service users” as if they are some kind of consumer, and nor does saying mental illness is just the same as physical illness, because it is not.
	The big problem for those with a record of mental health issues—particularly, perhaps, in respect of the workplace or getting off benefits and back into the workplace—is the bias of the wider world in favour of those who have not illustrated our common vulnerability. That bias is rather like having a—rational—preference for people with a stronger immune system. There are other vitiating factors at play, of course. People who suffer from mental illness often suffer from a lack of confidence, for example. There is also the fact, which has not so far been acknowledged, that a mental health diagnosis can sometimes be misused for employment and benefit reasons. The big problem is this bias and discrimination, however.
	There are only two real remedies for that. One is better public education about what mental health actually is and what mental illness and frailty actually are. I would put more faith in the second remedy, however: having a public mental health campaign that is geared in positive directions, as described by the hon. Member for Loughborough. Having said that, we must acknowledge that the active pursuit of mental well-being is a bigger and more significant task than we currently recognise. Corporate Britain, business Britain and every public service in Britain needs to be seriously engaged with the Layard agenda and to accept that we need to promote well-being at work—including here in Parliament. We must create a wholesome workplace, and therefore bother about the happiness of the workplace and the individuals in it.
	We may need to tackle a huge fallacy, however: the idea that we either have mental health or we do not, so we are either employable or we are not. That ignores the fact that many people in employment—in senior jobs, even—have mental health issues, some of which might not always be diagnosed. Sometimes they work them out in the office and the workplace in a wholly unsatisfactory way, and sometimes to the detriment of their colleagues—although not always, in certain professions, to the detriment of customers and profits. Sometimes people mask their symptoms and problems through alcoholic self-medication.
	There was a time when employers would have walked away from considering issues such as personal safety at work, and there was a time when they would have walked away from issues of employment legislation and the rights of people at work. Nowadays, however, most employers are keen to stick “Investors in People” logos on their notepaper to show that they are a good employer in that respect. The next, and most obvious, stage is the pursuit of the wholesome workplace, in a move beyond the “Investors in People” initiative. That must be encouraged by public health bodies and by large public and corporate organisations. Indeed, to some extent it already is encouraged: 41% of large companies now have a mental health policy. That represents appreciable progress.
	For most of us, work is where we spend most of our time, and it is where our feelings of self-worth are either confirmed or demolished—that is certainly true of this place. It is where people find meaning to their lives—although we do not always succeed in doing that here. Indeed, we in Parliament cannot honestly say our working environment is wholly conducive to good mental health.
	Let me conclude by reiterating my key point: we cannot help people with mental health issues without making it manifestly clear that in everyday work and everyday life mental health is everybody’s issue.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome this debate, and I will do my best to stick to the eight minutes that you have suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure that everybody gets to make a contribution. It is valuable to have this debate and to raise the whole issue of the stigma surrounding mental health. I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for speaking out, because it is necessary to do so. The public need to understand that everyone knows somebody who has suffered from degrees of depression or many other conditions. I am sure that all of us, even if we do not believe that we have suffered
	from this ourselves in our own lives and in our own families, know people who have. Public attitudes have come a long way since the late Tom Eagleton was driven out of the US vice-presidential nomination in 1972 because he had had treatment for severe depression. He, to his credit, later went on to become a Senator, elected with 60% of the vote, so the timidity of the political establishment in the US in 1972 was overturned by a much more generous political atmosphere some years later. We should remember people like him, who, in many respects, paved the way for it.
	We have to understand that about 4,000 people a year in this country commit suicide. The figure varies a bit from year to year, but it is about 4,000. That is a very large figure indeed, which is why I intervened on the Minister on the question of deaths when people are in care or in custody, and I am looking forward to his response. As a society, we have to think a bit more carefully about the terror that some people live their lives in, which ends in a lonely suicide. These are people who were unable to seek help or support from anybody else, and were probably reading in the papers, hearing jokes on television and being the butt of comedians’ jokes about “sad nutters”, “desperate people” and so on. As a society and as a community, we need to reach out to people who are going through their own tensions and their own crises. If we cannot do that, the number of suicides will not fall and is likely to increase.
	In my community, we have a good mental health service. We have a trust that operates in Camden and Islington, which is quite a small geographical area for it to operate across. It is certainly much smaller than many others in other parts of the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and I fought very hard to ensure that it was operated on a relatively small basis because we felt that that would provide for a better service that was more in touch with the local community. I hope that it will be able to continue in that way, but I am saddened to have to report that this year the trust plans to deliver what it describes as
	“£75.1m savings across the acute sector; £46.7m from acute productivity and £28.4m through changes in care setting and other demand management initiatives.”
	That is quite a big cut in desperately needed services in an area that suffers from a very high level of need for mental health care and treatment.
	My own local Islington borough council, to its credit, instituted the fairness commission after the 2010 elections. The council has said:
	“The work of the Islington Fairness Commission highlighted the wide-ranging impacts of challenges to mental health and wellbeing for people, communities and services in Islington, particularly during a period of economic uncertainty and financial hardship.”
	A number of recommendations are then made, with the council going on to state:
	“Levels of need are exceptionally high in Islington. There were 3,152 patients on serious mental illness primary care registers in Islington in 2010/11, representing 1 in every 65 patients. There are an estimated 31,000 adults and 3,000 children and young people…experiencing mental health problems…There are an estimated 3,500…drug users, and 10,000 problem alcohol users, with 46,000 adults in total drinking at hazardous or harmful levels. Underlying rates of mental health and substance misuse problems in prison reach in excess of 90%.”
	My borough contains two prisons. We have to examine those issues seriously as a House and as a society.
	The other point I wanted to make was that the economic issues associated with stress are very serious indeed. Obviously, one such issue is unemployment, but others are housing and overcrowding and, often, the domestic violence that results. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I share the Finsbury Park Homeless Families Project unit, which is based in her constituency but does wonderful work to support families in both our constituencies. The unit’s staff point out that the severe problems of the people who come to see them are usually related to serious overcrowding, housing uncertainty and lack of secure tenancy. Various levels of stress and mental health issues pertain to that. In solving these issues, we must consider the economic factors.
	We should also consider very seriously the levels of stress and depression among young people. Growing up as a young person in any community is not easy. They are faced with enormous pressures from a consumerist society to achieve and to have. Many cannot fulfil those ideals and will never be able to fulfil those ambitions. The levels of stress we are forcing on to young people result in some cases—although, thankfully, only a very small number—in serious illness or even suicide.

Yvonne Fovargue: To return to the social pressures, does my hon. Friend agree that debt is a considerable social pressure? I ran a scheme where debt advice was provided on prescription and paid for by the PCT. Independent analysis reckoned that at least three suicides had been prevented by early access to debt advice. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that that access might well now be restricted?

Jeremy Corbyn: I completely endorse what my hon. Friend has said and the great work she has done in supporting advice agencies and dealing with such issues. My borough recently opened a new citizen’s advice bureau—I congratulate the council on being able to fund and reopen it—and it has been inundated with people with serious debt issues. It offers serious debt advice and a great deal of help. We have also given a lot of support to a credit union that is working very well with a large and fast-growing membership. People are accessing a limited amount of credit and support, and it is far better that it comes from that source than from the high street loan sharks who are appearing all over the country and bleeding people dry with the excessive rates of interest that they charge.
	There are some things we can do, but my point is that if a young person worked hard in school, did well, studied hard and got good grades but is still unemployed and after a while becomes almost unemployable, it becomes a source of enormous stress about the future.
	I want to bring up two more issues before I conclude. In my part of London and, I suspect, many other parts of urban Britain, many victims of domestic violence, usually women, seek support and therapy. The voluntary sector is often best placed to provide that support and therapy and that was why I intervened on the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) when she introduced the debate to make the point that when commissioning is done by the primary care trusts or the wider trusts that deal exclusively with mental health issues, it tends to be skewed in favour of the very large and
	financially burgeoned organisations rather than local charities and voluntary sector groups with a specific base, which are often much more effective and provide a very good service. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some good news on that, or if he could write to me about how those issues could be brought out.
	In my community, we have a number of very effective charities that work with victims of domestic violence and racist abuse, which, fortunately, is not an enormous issue but nevertheless exists. We also have a large number of people who have experienced torture and violence and are either asylum seekers or have achieved refugee status. I thank those charities for the work they do. Nafsiyat, an intercultural therapy centre based in Finsbury Park, has done good and groundbreaking work on cultural values and dealing with stress and the victims of violence. The Maya centre deals with women who have suffered similar problems. We also have the Women’s Therapy Centre, ICAP—Immigrant Counselling and Psychotherapy—which gives enormous support to other people, and the local Refugee Therapy Centre. They all do very good work, all have difficulty coping with the demands placed on them and all have financial issues. When the Government talk about increased money for mental health, they should think very carefully about how the contracts are negotiated, as they often force very low rates of pay on the voluntary sector to undertake the kind of work that is done. The Minister needs to think quite carefully about that.
	The housing issue has been referred to and the number of homeless people in this country is rising, as is the number who are suffering from stress. Locally, we have a group called the Pilion Trust which has recently been given a donation—I am grateful to the Amy Winehouse Foundation for that—to help in its work in providing a night shelter, but a night shelter is not a solution to homelessness problems. A solution to homelessness problems is having a requirement regarding re-housing and a much more aggressive housing programme in this country.
	I conclude by saying that too many people commit suicide and suffer from mental health issues and stress in their lives. We cannot change all of that but we can change the approach to mental health issues. We can look at the good work that is done and support people in that work. We can say to those who have gone through depression and crises, “That is not the end.” Such people are contributing to our society and will succeed later in life. We should recognise the value of everyone and not consign people to a mark that indicates they have become unemployable and have no future. That is as bad as what the asylum system did in the past. We can do better than that and learn from others and the good experience they have had.

Gavin Barwell: First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate. In my limited experience in the House, the Committee’s debates often show the Chamber at its best. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who is one of the stars of the 2010 intake on the Government side of the House. She is an example of the work that Lord Maples, who sadly passed away this week, had done to diversify the make-up of Members on our Benches. That is about a lot more than tokenism.
	As a number of Members have said, I came fourth in the private Member’s Bill ballot. I found that out because my inbox was suddenly swamped by a large number of e-mails congratulating me, and my mobile phone and desk phone started ringing at the same time. For a Back-Bench Member it is a fairly rare opportunity to change the law of this country. I have taken my time and thought long and hard about what I wanted to bring forward. On Wednesday, I will be presenting the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill, which was introduced by Lord Stevenson of Coddenham in the last parliamentary Session, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said. I am doing that partly for personal reasons. Two of my closest personal friends suffer from mental health conditions, and two teachers who had a very formative role in my education, when I was a teenager, have also suffered from mental health conditions. My predecessor, the former Member for Croydon Central, Andy Pelling, who some Members in the House will have known, also suffered from a mental health condition.
	In addition, since I have been a Member of the House, in my surgeries I have met a significant number of constituents who are suffering, including people whose children have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. There is one gentleman I will never forget who came to my surgery suicidal because he had lost his job and was at risk of losing his home and the ability to support his family. A couple of weeks ago I visited the South London YMCA and met a man who had witnessed someone commit suicide and had gone to his GP for help but had not received proper help and had suffered a breakdown. His marriage had broken up, he had lost his job and he had ended up sleeping in the park. So my decision has been prompted by a mix of personal reasons and what I have seen as a constituency MP.
	The Bill is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness and the Law Society. Its purpose is very simple: to remove the last significant form of discrimination in law in our society. This country has changed a huge amount since I was a young child. I remember the first Asian family moving into our road when I was growing up. Some of the people who lived in our road put pressure on the people selling their house not to sell to an Asian family. I also remember the arguments about section 28 and the language that was used in my school playground. We have made a huge amount of progress since then as a country, but we have not got there yet. To our shame, however, the law still discriminates against those with a mental health condition. An MP or a company director can be removed from their job as a result of a mental health condition even if they go on to make a full recovery. Many people who are perfectly capable of performing jury service are disbarred from doing so. If my private Member’s Bill is approved by the House, we will look back in a few years’ time and be amazed that the nonsense I have described was on the statute book in 2012.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, one in four of us will experience a mental health condition in our lifetime; three in four of us will see a member of our immediate family experience such a condition. As the right hon. Member for Leigh said, the numbers have increased because, while the physical conditions in which we live and work have improved, our lives are busier and much more stressful. The World Health Organisation estimates that by 2030 more people
	will be affected by depression than any other health condition. The law as it stands sends out the message that if someone has a mental health condition their contribution to public life is not welcome.
	Lord Stevenson’s Bill had four aims: first, to repeal section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 under which a Member of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Welsh Assembly or of the Northern Ireland Assembly automatically lost their seat if they were detained under the Act for more than six months. There is no equivalent provision to remove an MP if they suffer a physical illness that affects their ability to perform their role and, furthermore, someone who lacks mental capacity, as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, can be detained for up to 12 months and not lose their seat.
	Secondly, the Bill would amend the Juries Act 1974 significantly to reduce and better define who is ineligible for jury service. At the moment, the Act says that mentally disordered persons are ineligible. The definition of a mentally disordered person is extremely wide and includes people who manage their mental health condition through a prescription from their GP or counselling from a psychiatrist, thus eliminating all sorts of people who would make excellent jurors. Only 2% of people tick the box, but many more should probably do so. Not only is the law discriminatory but it is ineffective. If someone is on trial, they have a right to be confident that the jury is of sound mind. The Bill would better define who should be ineligible, thus making it much more likely that those people would identify themselves in the process.
	Thirdly, the Bill would amend the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008, so that someone no longer ceased to be a director of a public or private company purely because of their mental health. All companies are required by statute to have articles of association, and model articles operate where a company has failed to draw up its own. Many companies incorporate them into their own articles. They include a provision that someone ceases to be a director if a registered medical practitioner who is treating them gives a written opinion to the company stating that they have become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and they remain so for more than three months—in other words, the correct test of capacity. However, they go on to include a totally unnecessary additional provision relating solely to mental health.
	Finally, the Bill would amend school governance regulations so that people detained under the Mental Health Acts would no longer be disqualified from holding office as school governors. Clearly, while someone is detained they are unable to attend governors’ meetings, but that may be for only a short time, and there is no reason why they should not resume their role.
	I am delighted that the Government have dealt with one of those issues—the School Governance (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 came into force on 17 March, and rightly set the disqualification test as failure to attend six meetings in a period of six months without consent from the governing body. The Government made a public commitment, when they published their mental health strategy, to change the legislation in relation to Members of Parliament. I hope that they will support the rest of the Bill. In other place, Lord Wallace of Saltaire said that the Government were considering the detail of what was proposed on jury
	service, and he hoped that the Bill would be reintroduced in this Session. I hope that it receives all-party support, and I was delighted to hear what the right hon. Member for Leigh had to say.
	I want to end with two simple contentions. First, Parliament, schools, companies and the court system benefit from the involvement of people with experience of mental health conditions. Indeed, our debate has been illuminated in particular by the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I do not know the hon. Gentleman very well, but I have always pictured him—and I think he would regard it as a compliment—as a bit of a political bruiser. For someone with that reputation to have the courage to say what he said will change people’s opinion of him, and very positively. The whole House has a high regard for what he has said, but I am sure that when we move on to other debates, normal hostilities will be resumed.
	A school may have a pupil with a mental health condition; in a court case, the accused’s state of mind may be a key issue. How much better will that school be if a governor has experience? How much better will that court case be if there is a juror with the necessary experience? The Bill will directly help a relatively small number of people, but it also sends a clear message that discrimination is wrong: people have a right to be judged as individuals, not labelled or stereotyped.
	In September, the excellent Time to Change campaign, run by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, surveyed 2,700 people with mental health conditions. Of those, 80% said that they had experienced discrimination, two thirds were too scared to tell their employer, 62% were too scared to tell their friends and, worst of all, more than a third were too scared to seek professional help. Having a mental health condition is nothing to be ashamed of or to keep a secret. It is high time we dragged the law of this land into the 21st century.

Chris Ruane: Most of the contributions we have heard so far today have concentrated on mental ill health, but I also wish to address mental health and well-being, and not just for those who have experienced mental health problems, but for the whole population in general.
	Over £400 billion worth of illegal drugs are traded around the world ever year, which is the same amount that is spent on energy, or 8% of the world’s wealth. When that is combined with the amount spent on alcohol, cigarettes, legal drugs to help us over depression, over-eating and the amount spent trying to fix all those problems, we are probably talking about 20% of the world’s wealth being spent on, essentially, escaping from reality. That is a modern reality that has many causes. We need to look at the debate in the round and consider all the factors, including nutrition, advertising, the farming industry and work practices, because they all have an impact on what certain Members have so eloquently described today. We should look not just at the pinnacle of the problem, but what is behind it.
	Statistics show that 29% of US school children have mental health problems. At what point will American society say, “Enough is enough”? Is it when 39%, 49%
	or 59% of their children are mentally ill? The UK is not far behind. We follow the Anglo-American pattern, because 22% of our children experience mental health problems, and they are the lucky ones, because 74% of children in care homes experience mental health problems, as do 46% of those who are fostered. Some 90% of prisoners have mental health problems. Obesity is also a problem. At age five 10% of UK children are obese, but by age 10 the figure is 20%. What is happening in that five-year period to make those kids consume the sugars, fats and salts that will react with their bodies? Those fats will react with the fats in their brain and their myelin sheaths and neural pathways. It is an epidemic that is growing out of control, and we will be picking up the costs, including the financial costs and health costs for the individual and their families, for decades to come.
	I recently received an answer to a parliamentary question. It showed that in 1991 almost 9 million prescriptions for antidepressant drugs were dispensed in the UK, but by 2011 the figure had increased to over 46.5 million, a 500% increase. When I asked the Minister for his assessment of why that was so, he replied:
	“We are unable to provide a conclusive account for the increase in the number of prescription items dispensed.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1286W.]
	We do not know what is making the kids obese and we do not know what is turning our population into legal addicts. Those statistics are just for antidepressants and do not take into account the other drugs taken to help us sleep, keep us awake, keep us happy or manage our sex lives, although I never use them. There are other ways, because drugs are just one way of handling it. One-to-one counselling is another way, but it is very expensive. There is a third way: self-help. One of the best ways of self-help is mindfulness.
	Mindfulness has been around for 2,500 years. To give a definition, mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way; on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally. In other words, it means someone just focusing—not being chased by their past or worried by their future, but experiencing what they are experiencing there in the moment.
	Mindfulness has been taught very effectively in America over a 30-year period and more recently in this country over a 10 to 12-year period. It involves an eight-week course, two-and-a-half hours’ taught lessons a week and 45 minutes’ meditation at home for six days a week, and it is taught in groups of eight to 20, so the costs are minimal and the benefits are unbelievable. It is out there, but it has not been taken up—even when NICE recommended it as a more effective means of treating repeat-episode depression. In 2004, it recommended the programme as being better than pills, but it has not been taken up. GPs and, dare I say it, Ministers do not know about it. I have quizzed Irish and British Ministers, and they do not know about it.

Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but my experience is that, although group therapy might work for certain individuals, for many it does not. One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) did in the previous Government, and which has made a real difference, was to open up cognitive behaviour therapy treatments, as they have been a substitute for drugs. So no one treatment is a silver bullet for mental illness.

Chris Ruane: Absolutely. Cognitive behaviour therapy is fantastic, and mindfulness has now been tacked on to it to make it even more effective. The group therapy lasts only for eight weeks; after that the individual can handle it themselves. I have practised it for five years now, and I have been on the formal course.
	It was Descartes who said that the mind is separate from the body and the body separate from the mind, but in eastern philosophy and medicine that is not the case: body and mind are inter-related. Mindfulness can be used to combat pain, stress, eating disorders, addiction, anxiety and psoriasis, but it has been recommended in the UK only for the treatment of repeat depression—and it has not even been used for that.
	In America they use it in the prison service, in the police, fire and emergency services, including on those with witness trauma, in the health service for a range of medical conditions, to improve heart and cancer treatment and, even, in Congress. Congressman Tim Ryan, its expert on the subject, has just written a book, “A Mindful Nation”, about how mindfulness can be used across the board.
	So there are other ways that we have not explored, but they have been around for 2,500 years and proved to be effective. There are experts in mindfulness, such as Jon Kabat-Zinn who pioneered it in America, and experts in positive psychology, such as Martin Seligman. Freud believed that if a person was mentally ill the most they could achieve was wellness, not happiness, but Martin Seligman, who headed the American Psychological Association, turned that around 20 years ago and developed positive psychology in America.
	We have our own experts: Professor Richard Layard, a Labour Lord in the other place; and Felicia Huppert, the mother of a famous Liberal MP based in Cambridge, who has a theory that if we shift the whole wellbeing curve, including on the right-hand side those who are mentally ill and on the left-hand side those who are positive, across and make the whole population happier, the greatest impact will be on the unhappiest—on those with mental health problems.
	There are also impacts on the polices that we develop throughout society and on what makes people happy. On the Office for National Statistics’ list of what makes people in the UK happy, No. 1 is living next to a park or having access to a swimming pool; No. 2 is having access to cultural services such as libraries; No. 3 is being physically healthy; No. 4 is having time to relax and enjoy oneself; No. 5 is living in a fair society; No. 6, the only one involving money, is having enough money to do what one wants; No. 7 is freedom; No. 8 is being content with one’s situation; No. 9 is people looking after each other; and No. 10 is the smell of freshly ground coffee.
	Only one pertains to money, yet our whole society is geared to making money. Those are the values that we and Governments of both parties have adopted, but now we need to develop policies that recognise the situation and the position of mental health in society. It is the No. 1 issue affecting our society, and we need to look at it in the round.

Peter Bottomley: It is a delight to congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on his speech. We are having a
	debate of which the previous speakers and the Backbench Business Committee should be proud. I missed out on a lunch the other day and went with my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and others to appear in front of the Committee. They were tough and they were clear. We made our point that the subject needed a debate, and the issue then was whether it should be in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber. I think that if it had been in Westminster Hall the impact would not have been so great.
	When I was first elected to the House of Commons, if a Member of Parliament was thought to have gone mad, the Speaker would refer them to two people nominated by the Royal College of Surgeons. One of my early interventions was to suggest that psychiatrists might be rather more useful. If the Bill taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) gets through, perhaps that approach will be thrown away in turn.
	Again when I was first elected, The Times and The Daily Telegraph would report debates and pick up a good point from everyone’s speech. If that happened after today’s debate, people’s understanding of the experiences of the lack of mental health, and of more extreme, occasionally disabling mental illness would become greater, deeper and wider. That would give comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who care for people who are experiencing the lack of mental health.

Andy Burnham: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early on, but he is making such an important broader point about media coverage of mental health. Would he want to pay tribute to the Sunday Express, which has led a campaign that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)? One would not necessarily expect a newspaper to run a mental health campaign, yet it has. That is precisely the kind of media leadership that we need to see on this issue.

Peter Bottomley: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that. I was trying to say things that had not been said already, and there has already been a tribute to the Sunday Express. I would add that several journalists have been prepared to speak about their own medical conditions that have challenged their ability to live or to work effectively. I am not saying that we should all have to spend our time saying what our physical or mental experiences have been, but it does help if it is regarded as being as normal to talk about having had an episode of depression as of having had a basal carcinoma removed or having recovered from a broken hip.
	I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of people who care for those experiencing the lack of mental health. I also pay tribute to the professionals, particularly to Lisa Rodrigues, who is chief executive of the Sussex Partnership Trust. She has spoken of the services it provides across East Sussex, West Sussex, Brighton and Hove and Hampshire, and the 27,000 young people with whom she and her colleagues come into contact each year. They are not all experiencing real disability, but some will.
	When I became Roads Minister, one of my ambitions was to try to get the number of road deaths down below the suicide rate. Young people’s suicides number about 900 each year. The total number of road deaths among
	adults and young people is 1,800. The road deaths figure has come down from 5,600 a year to 1,850. Would it not be good if we could do the same thing for self-destruction and the penalties that that imposes—not only the shortened life but the damage to those around the person who has died?
	My wife was a psychiatric social worker before she became a Member of Parliament, a Health Minister, and then Secretary of State for Health, when she took mental health issues very seriously. She worked with those at the Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry where, with one of her colleagues, Peter Wilson, she ran a support service for teachers. If we are to start being concerned with young people, we need to make sure that those who are in contact with them—parents, and teachers in primary and secondary schools—have an understanding of what is normally unhealthy, if I can put it that way.
	One young person in four experiences some kind of mental health episode. We need to know how much of that involves a relatively normal experience from which they will recover. We also need to identify the one in 10 who will probably need help from someone with experience or specialist qualifications, and the 2% or 3% for whom the experience will be disabling.
	YoungMinds is an association with which Peter Wilson was associated—I think he might have created it. It has a manifesto in which young people say that if they can get help when they are young, many more of them could be kept out of prison and psychiatric hospital, and kept in work and leading the kind of life that contributes to society.
	I once met someone who had had experience of schizophrenia. There was a fine mental health project just outside my former constituency, and he told me that he was glad to have got to know about it. He became a client of the project. Six months later, he became a volunteer. A year later he wrote to tell me that it was the proudest moment of his life, as he was now a taxpayer with a paid job. He was given the opportunity to take those steps forward, in an environment in which everyone knew what was happening and could share in it and give support when appropriate. Those opportunities matter.
	Had there been more time, I would have been tempted to talk about a range of issues, giving a sentence or two to each, but I do not think that that will be possible. I would say, however, to those who suffer at times, or constantly, from depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or personality disorders—I could go on—that information on most of those conditions is available on the websites of the organisations that provide help.
	About 31 years ago, I was appointed to the council of Mind, formerly the National Association for Mental Health. The reason for that was that the then Conservative Government wanted to give the organisation their support, and its then general secretary was thought to be left-wing; I was there to provide balance. I am not sure how my Whips would regard that decision today. [ Laughter. ]
	The Mental Health Foundation does good work, and I also pay tribute to the Samaritans for the help that they give to people about whom they are concerned. Their website contains information on how we can help
	someone, even if we are untrained. It suggests avoiding the “Why?” question, as that can be regarded as challenging. Instead, it suggests asking:
	“When—‘When did you realise?’ Where—‘Where did that happen?’ What—‘What else happened?’ How—‘How did that feel?’ In an ideal world what would you like to happen next? Would you like me to come with you?”
	Standing beside people in that way can be a pretty effective approach.
	I want to give the House one or two examples from the weekly newsletter from Lisa Rodrigues of the Sussex Partnership Trust. I try to send it on to two or three other people each week, to whom some of the points might be relevant. One week she talked about cancer, describing how, in the 1950s, Sir Richard Doll and others had started to examine the causes of lung cancer, and to realise that asbestos could also have a serious effect on breathing. She wrote:
	“So why am I talking about cancer? It is because today dementia is where cancer was all those years ago…Why Sussex? Because we have the highest percentage of old people in the country living here. And why me? Because specialist mental health services hold the key to unlocking the potential in primary care, acute hospitals, local authorities, the voluntary and nursing home sector to provide better treatment and care to people with dementia, and support for their families.”
	Lisa Rodrigues also recently attended a conference on how to get the various groups to work together more effectively, which is vital for people and their families and carers. If only they could find a one-stop shop to refer them to a place where they could be embraced as a person, a household or a family unit. She said that if we could get our mental health services working more effectively, our physical health services would have far less to cope with. That point has also been developed by other hon. Members this afternoon. She also wrote in her newsletter:
	“We have a dream. In our dream, our psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, psychologists, therapists, care staff, receptionists and anyone else who comes into contact with the 100,000 people we serve each year will have the best possible tools to do their jobs. This will include a small, lightweight…portable device via which they can access patient records”
	and the background of all the people they are in contact with. Up to now, that has not been possible.
	Lisa Rodrigues talks every two or three weeks about employees who have done something special. In one example, she talks about the staff who have worked on a clinical reception and their helpfulness to patients and other visitors. She goes on to mention a person whom I have not met called Jackie Efford, a nurse in the health team at Lewes prison, who
	“works flexibly so that, when prisoners arrive late into the night, she comes in to assess them and respond to any urgent physical or mental needs. Imagine being a prisoner and what a difference it would make to have a meeting when you first arrived with a compassionate and effective nurse.”
	Lisa Rodrigues also talks about the child and adolescent mental health services. She says that the name is
	“no longer fit for purpose. The word adolescent has negative connotations. And young people don’t respond positively to the term mental health.”
	We must find the right language, not for political correctness, but to help people more effectively.
	It would be easy to say more on this issue. However, I want to end by saying that if we have to wait another year to develop these themes, Parliament will not be
	doing its job properly. We should not have to rely on the pleading and cajoling that we provided at the Backbench Business Committee. Debates on this matter ought to be built in, rather than bolted on.

Lyn Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I am very glad to be in the Chamber to speak alongside those who have made exceptional speeches today, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) to name just two.
	I will highlight three things. The first is the key factors that are linked to mental well-being and the characteristics of my local borough of Newham. The second is what resources are available to my local health authorities and mental health services. The third is the need for those resources to be improved in the light of what we know works in improving mental health.
	The need for a robust strategy to promote well-being is illustrated by the correlation between the determinants of mental ill health and some of the characteristics of the population of my borough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is no longer in his place, attested so powerfully, one such determinant is age. The rates of mental illness vary across age ranges, but it is a sad fact that younger people are more likely than the elderly to experience mental ill health. A high proportion of mental health problems develop between the ages of 14 and 20. One in 10 children between the ages of five and 16 have a mental health problem, and such problems may well continue into adulthood.
	The borough of Newham has one of the youngest populations in the country. The number of young people with mental health problems is therefore greater than elsewhere. Some 40% of the borough’s population is made up of people under the age of 25. As nearly 10% of people aged between five and 16 experience mental health problems, statistically we can expect 4,262 of the children and young people in Newham to experience such problems. That clearly has an impact on the needs of the population of Newham and on the type of service that it requires. It should be funded to cater for those needs.
	We all know that there are other important determinants of the mental health of a community. One of those is deprivation. Common mental disorders such as depression, anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder are more prevalent in deprived households. Again, Newham suffers from high levels of deprivation. It is ranked the third most deprived local authority in the country and 51.5% of its children live in poverty. The index of deprivation ranks the borough fourth in the country for the proportion of children aged between nought and 15 living in an income-deprived household. That is just one measure of deprivation, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is a worrying one.
	In addition, the decline of owner-occupation and the increase in the private rented sector changes the very nature of local communities. Support networks that people rely on—their friends and family, and wider communities such as their church and faith—are disintegrating as housing pressures force families to move home, leave their communities or remain in overcrowded, sometimes
	unhygienic and often poorly managed private rented housing, which is sadly a fast-growing sector of tenure in the London borough of Newham.
	In my constituency, there is a high level of need for services that will enable the people of Newham to be self-sufficient and lead independent, successful lives. My concern is that the process used to allocate the resources needed to support those services is fundamentally flawed. It is skewed in a way that significantly disadvantages my community.
	Since 2006, if not earlier, the population estimate for Newham has clearly been an underestimate by the Office for National Statistics. The under-count was estimated at about 60,000 people until, in November 2011, the ONS went some way towards recognising the historic underestimate by provisionally estimating the population at 272,000, an increase of 32,000. That significant increase of 13% is, by the way, the largest change in any London borough. However, the new figure still falls some 30,000 short of the population estimate made by an independently commissioned study. That is a shortfall in excess of 10%.
	The real population of the borough stands at roughly 300,000. That is the figure that should drive resource allocation, because it relates to the real world and real need. However, the ONS mid-year estimates are used to determine how the national funding pot is allocated to local areas, even though they do not accurately reflect the true population of my area. Given the level of need in my constituency, to say that resources are not allocated on a level playing field is an understatement.
	The effect of an inadequate allocation system is compounded by a reliance on historical spend to determine current needs. That means that my local primary care trust has consistently struggled to find resources to deal with persistent need. Figures in the House Library tell me that expenditure per head on mental health in Newham in 2010-11 was £208.93. That compares with £447.21 in Westminster and £331.81 in Kensington and Chelsea. I wish to hammer home the point that the spend for Newham is based on the ONS population estimate, so the real spend per head is even lower.
	The shadow health and wellbeing board for the London borough of Newham has discussed the matter at length and agreed a robust strategy, with a clear focus on maintaining resilience within the community. It wants to support people by ensuring that they possess the skills and resources that will enable them to negotiate successfully the challenges that they experience.
	Let us face it: we know from evidence what works. The health and wellbeing board has indicated that it wants to focus its activity on parenting skills and pre-school education to set up an early family environment that supports children’s emotional and behavioural development. It wants to support lifelong learning, with health promotion in schools and continuing education, as schools are a really important resource, particularly for children facing difficulties at home.
	The board also wants to find a way of improving working lives in the borough, as one in six people in the work force are affected by mental health problems, and a way of supporting a good and healthy lifestyle by encouraging exercise and good diet. It wants to encourage the learning of new skills and the taking-up of creative pursuits—social participation that promotes mental well-being across the piece. The board is also supporting
	communities through environmental improvements. Environmental predictors of poor mental health include neighbourhood noise, overcrowding, fear of crime, poor housing and so on. Finding out what to do is frustrating, but it is also frustrating that resources are being rather unfairly allocated. Newham is poorly served in that regard.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for creating this opportunity to discuss an issue that is often invisible, and on which there is not enough focus and debate. Poor mental health has an extraordinarily detrimental impact on huge numbers of people in our communities. We could and should be dealing with the problem in a plethora of holistic ways in our local communities.
	Newham is severely under-resourced in the face of significant pressures on mental health provision. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), in the Chamber. I know he has listened to me and, given that he is a former Whip, that he is a very honourable man. I shall write to him to push the case for greater funding for Newham as we continue to fight for the resources that my communities desperately need to access better life chances, which includes better mental health.

Paul Beresford: It was beginning to look like a Whips’ cabal in the Chamber. I was quite worried. A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is busy disappearing from the Chamber, mentioned care for, and the mental health of, veterans—[ Interruption. ] I am making a plea to keep my small audience. To my delight, the shadow Secretary of State mentioned a famous organisation in that field: Combat Stress—[ Interruption. ] He is also leaving the Chamber the moment I mention him. He can read my speech in Hansard as he has obviously been urgently called away.
	Combat Stress was supported by the previous Government as it is by this one. Combat Stress clients—ex-servicemen, or veterans—suffer from the appalling conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or anxiety, or all three. Anyone who has seen such individuals with such conditions will recognise that they are exceptionally debilitating. They destroy the normal life of victims and those around them.
	Combat Stress has three centres—the main one is in my constituency—an outreach service throughout the nation and a liaison team. It has been making a difference for some considerable time. Some 83.5% of Combat Stress clients are ex-Army. Three per cent. are female. Most of the veterans contact the Combat Stress service themselves or through family referral, but only 3.6% are referred by general practitioners, 6.9% by community health teams, and 0.3% by a hospital service. I hope the Minister thinks about that.
	To make access to those services more available, Combat Stress set up a 24-hour helpline in March last year. It may interest the House and the Minister to consider statistics from the helpline from March 2011 to January 2012. Combat Stress received 6,279 calls, including voicemails. A few people hung up—a tragic few calls were silent, which I think says a lot.
	Of the callers who were contacted, 74% were male and 26% female. Army veterans made a total of 2,248 calls. The second largest group of callers were family, friends and carers of the victims, who themselves were therefore victims. Seventy-seven per cent. of callers called about themselves. Perhaps tragically—I hope the Minister makes a note of this—just 6% of callers were given the number and contact details by a health professional. The call centre seems to be catching on. In March, it received 286 calls, but that doubled to 604 the following January. The organisation is funded by the Government, and I plead with the Minister to keep the funding going. I am sure he will.
	The average post-service delay is a staggering 13 years. The Minister should be aware that after such a delay an individual’s condition will have developed in complexity, meaning that their recovery treatment can last for years, whereas if treatment is early, it can last just weeks and months. Early diagnosis and referral can lead to faster and cheaper treatment, and greater success, and can mean that the potential side effects of alcoholism, drug problems, which have been mentioned—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Will the Minister wait while the hon. Gentleman is standing? The Minister was right in my line of vision, and it is not fair to the person speaking. This is the third time it has happened.

Paul Beresford: As mentioned by several Members, the result can often be imprisonment, yet all these side effects could be avoided. On average, it takes veterans just over 13 years from service discharge to first approach Combat Stress. This is an ongoing issue for veterans.
	Community outreach teams across the country now provide much support for veterans. They provide support and advice in veterans’ own homes and nearby community-based clinical care. Yesterday, we made much of the Falklands war, which ended 30 years ago today, on 14 June 1982. Of the 4,800 veterans Combat Stress is helping, 221 served in the Falklands war. The youngest is 46 and the oldest is 74, and on average the Falklands veterans have waited 15 years before going for help. Last year, 18 Falklands veterans contacted Combat Stress for the first time, and this year, to date, 10 have contacted it. But of course the case load is not just from the Falklands. Of the 4,800 ex-service men and women being treated, 589 served in Iraq and 228 served in Afghanistan. Between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011, Combat Stress received 1,443 new referrals.
	Having set the scene, I shall touch on a few key points for the Minister to consider. First, all the UK Governments must acknowledge the ongoing need. Most of the Governments contribute considerably towards Combat Stress and its costs. Combat Stress estimates that in 2012, 960 service personnel will leave the armed forces with the likelihood of suffering from PTSD. I shall follow up a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford. We must persuade the MOD to look specifically at their decompressing veterans-to-be and, if there is any suspicion, to refer them to Combat Stress. It would make treatment by Combat Stress easier, because it would be given earlier, and all the pain and suffering of these men and women could be reduced to a tiny fraction of what it is for many of those in Combat Stress now.
	That brings me to the crux of the problem, which has been touched on. Because mental illness is not a physical but a mental wound, a stigma is attached to it. A lot of Members have mentioned that. Combat Stress tells me that 81% of veterans with a mental illness feel ashamed or embarrassed, which often prevents them from seeking help—it certainly delays them seeking help—and sadly one in three veterans are too ashamed of their condition ever to tell their families about it. As a result, many of those families break up. Among the other side effects are crime, disorder and alcoholism. This is a mental health problem, then, that could and should be alleviated early.
	Much has been done to raise the profile of the condition and the availability of help, so that those individuals do not feel that they are unique or, perhaps, weak. Much needs to be done to encourage them and their families to seek assistance. We need to put these valuable individuals back on their feet—and they are valuable: they have already performed valuable service, and there is still valuable service available if we can do that. Amazingly, there appears to be a considerable lack of understanding among GPs. Research conducted in September 2011 showed that only 5% of the veterans receiving help from Combat Stress had been referred by their GP. Perhaps those GPs failed to recognise the condition or were unaware of the existence of Combat Stress—or, more likely, both. I urge the Minister to ensure that the word is spread among our GPs. Combat Stress has done a clinical audit, and it would appear that approximately 80% of the veterans who come to it for clinical treatment tried to get help from their GPs or other specialist services first, and did not get it. Appallingly, that support and treatment was not forthcoming. It should be.
	I hope that the Minister will consider joining me in a visit to Combat Stress, to see the value of the work first hand, to understand its difficulties and to help to build on the opportunity to prevent some of the tragedies that we see. We need to remember that for those veterans the physical war is over, but the battle is still raging in their heads.

Heidi Alexander: I want to keep my remarks quite brief, because I know that many other hon. Members are keen to speak. Let me start by apologising to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) for not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I heard some of her thoughtful and comprehensive remarks on the television before I got in here, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. May I also say how powerful and honest the speeches that we heard from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) were? I echo what the Minister said earlier, which is that this place is often at its best when people speak from their personal experience, rather than quoting statistics from briefings that we have been sent or things that we have read in the newspaper. It reassures everyone outside this place that we are also human beings, as well as Members of Parliament.
	I have little expertise in this matter. Having said that, I have a close family member who has suffered obsessive compulsive disorder and psychosis in the past, and I have two very close friends who also suffer from OCD. I know how difficult it can be for them to overcome some of the challenges they face, so I think it is important
	that we have this debate today. I want to focus on the huge challenge of providing high-quality mental health services in what are difficult economic times. Given the tone of the debate, I do not want to turn this into a piece of political knockabout, but I do want to speak about the reality of the situation in my constituency, where a number of mental health facilities either are threatened with closure or have already been scaled back.
	The shadow Secretary of State for Health spoke earlier about how the mental health system is somewhat separate from the rest of the NHS. However, the mental health system is also facing considerable budgetary pressures—just as the rest of the NHS is—which is having an impact on some of the people we represent. During the parliamentary recess I visited a continuing care home for elderly mental health patients which is wholly funded by the NHS. The patients there are elderly people, often in their 60s, 70s or 80s, who have been sectioned and who have significant mental health needs, in terms of both medical and care support. The centre, in Granville Park in Lewisham, is threatened with closure. The service is excellent and the care provided is exemplary, and the families of the people who live there are incredibly concerned by the proposal to shut the unit down. South London and Maudsley NHS Trust is consulting on the closure. It claims that it has too many beds of that kind and says that it wants to scale back provision in Lewisham.
	My constituents know that many more elderly people have significant mental health needs so it is hard for them to understand why a mental health centre should be closed. I have to say that the way in which the consultation has been conducted is far from perfect. Parts of it just do not make sense. I have raised my concerns with the PCT and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
	Also threatened with closure are therapeutic care services for adults who have much lower mental health needs. A fantastic centre, known as the network arts centre in Lee, has been threatened with closure. I hope that the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust will find a way to maintain the provision by setting it up as some form of social enterprise. This is a place where adults with mental health needs—perhaps not as significant as others’, as I said—can come together and enjoy arts-based therapy in a setting that helps them to take the next step towards their recovery. I am hopeful of finding a way through that situation, but when services like this are threatened with closure, it is a matter of huge concern to the people who use them.
	I said that I would focus my remarks on the challenge of providing high-quality mental health services in difficult economic times, and the budgetary pressures faced by public services is one of them. Another is the greater uncertainty that individuals themselves face, which some hon. Members have touched on. A few weeks ago, I visited Mencap in Lewisham and met a group of people who were primarily carers for people with mental health difficulties. The questions they wanted to ask me were about the work capability assessment for the employment and support allowance; they wanted to ask me about the process their loved ones would have to go through in transferring from disability living allowance to personal independence payments; they wanted to ask me about the changes to local council provision of day centres.
	What struck me was the great deal of uncertainty in the lives of people living with mental health problems and the people who are caring for them.
	We heard from the shadow Secretary of State about the importance of getting advice and support to people in difficult times, and he mentioned the miners in Easington. That brings it home that we all—the Government and councils—need to recognise the importance of getting that local advice and support to people when they face this uncertainty, which only adds to people’s stress and problems.
	The mental health charity Mind sent me some details of its information line. It told me that in the last 12 months, it had received 40,000 inquiries, but that unfortunately, because of the pressure it is currently under, two out of five of those calls went unanswered. Since the start of recession, Mind has seen a 100% increase in the number of calls relating to personal finances and employment. We need to understand the worries of people out there, and find a way to do more to recognise the importance of the local services that provide support and assistance.
	I said that I would be brief as others wished to speak. I think we have had a thoroughly excellent debate and I congratulate those who made it happen. I look forward to hearing the remaining contributions.

Sarah Wollaston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), whose speech has immediately entered the list of my top 10 favourite speeches. I thank and commend him for the work he has done over many years as chair as the all-party parliamentary group on mental health.
	I state from the outset that I am married to an NHS consultant psychiatrist and that my husband is involved in providing briefings to all Members on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. For that reason, I think it best for me to confine myself mostly to some personal reflections and some concerns that have been raised in my constituency, and in particular to address the issue of stigma.
	As we have been told today, one in four people will experience mental illness at some point in their lives. We have heard powerful speeches about that from a number of Members. Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I have experienced severe depression: at the happiest time of my life I experienced an episode of post-natal depression, so I know what it is like. I am sure that many other Members and people who are following today’s debate will know exactly what it is like to genuinely to feel that your family would be better off without you, and to experience the paralysis that can accompany severe depression.
	It has been rightly said today that there is concern about the way in which some GPs handle depression, but I want to make it clear that in my own case, accepting that I had a problem and seeing my GP was very much part of the road to recovery. I think that we should be careful when we talk about how GPs manage depression, because I can tell the House—not only on the basis of my personal experience, but on the basis
	of what I have heard from others—that there are many GPs out there who provide an excellent service, which I think can only be assisted by a move towards longer appointment times and better training.
	We have heard today about the various terms that people use for mental illness. Earlier, we heard it described as a mental health “experience”. I would say to anyone who is listening to the debate that an experience of depression makes many people stronger and more understanding. I am absolutely sure that my own experiences of depression and recovery—recovery is very important—caused me to become a much more sympathetic doctor, and I hope that it made me a more sympathetic and understanding MP, able to recognise the issues in others and respond to them appropriately.
	I want to sound a note of caution about employment and depression. Many Members have rightly mentioned the issues surrounding Atos assessments, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would address himself to some of the concerns that had been expressed, but I think that we should be careful about making assumptions. We should not assume that people with depression are unable to work; we should individualise the position.
	When I returned to work after having a baby, I was still suffering from severe panic attacks—especially when travelling on the underground—and in retrospect, I realise that I was still significantly depressed, but going back to work was part of my recovery. I know that it can be difficult to challenge the ideas of people who are depressed, but I think it important to present them with challenges and encouragement at some level, because depression is sometimes followed by a crisis of confidence, and getting back to work is part of the road to recovery from depression, however difficult it may feel. We should not make generalisations and assume that no one can return to work when they are depressed.
	I pay tribute to all those who help people with mental illness, including the many volunteers in all our constituencies, and I pay particular tribute to a voluntary group in my constituency called Cool Recovery. It is an independent mental health charity which cares for a number of people—not only those who have experience of depression, or are currently living with depression or other forms of mental illness, but those who have recovered from mental illness, and those who care for people who suffer from it.
	I feel that such voluntary sector groups are essential if we are to realise some of the benefits that can come from the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I was concerned to hear from the volunteers at Cool Recovery that they do not feel they have been sufficiently involved in the commissioning process, and that there are real anxieties about the extent to which the user voice and the voluntary sector voice are currently being heard in the new arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will give us an update on what is being done to ensure that there is adequate representation for the user voice and the voluntary sector at every stage on HealthWatch, on health and wellbeing boards, and right up to national level at the NHS Commissioning Board.

Paul Burstow: I give an undertaking to answer those points in the letter that I will write to Members.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Minister for that, and I look forward to reading his response.
	I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) will introduce a Bill to remove stigma. From talking to service users and those who have recovered from mental illness, it is clear to me that they are entirely capable of taking a full part in every aspect of life in their community and workplace, and in our national life. I was glad that the Minister and shadow Minister gave their full and unconditional backing to that Bill, as it will mark a very important step in removing the stigma of mental illness. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to the work of Time to Change, and I hope he will commit to continue to give support to that organisation.
	Some 22% of the disease burden in England comes from mental health issues, and it is time that we recognised that in our local and national commissioning. The mental health strategy is excellent, but we now need to ensure it is implemented. I know the Minister has set up a cross-ministerial group centrally, but who in this new system will be accountable for the successful implementation of the strategy locally and regionally—and what levers for change can they exert, and what sanctions will there be if it is not carried out?

Alison Seabeck: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She has great personal and professional experience in this field. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate, and I apologise to her for missing her opening speech as I mistimed my arrival in the Chamber. I will read it in Hansard, however.
	This is a very important debate. Mental health problems stigmatise. We have heard harrowing stories from colleagues on both sides of the House about how mental health issues affect our constituents—and also Members of Parliament. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his brave speech; he will now only have greater respect. It was interesting to hear how his experience made him stronger. The hon. Member for Totnes made that point, too, from her own experience. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a speech that managed to be entertaining despite the seriousness of the subject under discussion, and all I have to say in response is “rock ’n’ roll.”
	Mental health problems are met with intolerance and discrimination, and sometimes fear. When I was growing up, the terms used to describe people with mental illness included lunatic, nutter, headcase and maniac, all of which have associations of dangerous or unpredictable behaviour. No real effort was made to understand or support. The usual solution chosen was to lock people away, or to stay away from them.
	Many people, especially men, are reluctant to admit they have problems or that they are feeling depressed or are hearing voices. Some people do not understand that their lives are being affected by the state of their mental health. We find in our surgeries that people sometimes start talking about one problem, but when we dig we find layers of issues, including mental health issues. About 60% of the people I see have an underlying mental health issue, ranging from severe stress to serious psychotic conditions, and I do not think my constituency is unusual in that regard. Teasing out what support they have, or have not, sought can require great sensitivity,
	and very few MPs are trained counsellors or therapists. At times, however, we find ourselves taking on that role and doing our best.
	Plymouth has a number of organisations that work with people across the full range of conditions; the Samaritans and Plymouth Mind are excellent. Mind has been in touch with me to express serious concerns that, at a time when more people are struggling, money is a huge problem, relationships are failing, young men and women are returning from war and housing pressures are intolerable for some, the main provider of mental health services, Plymouth Community Healthcare, is no longer structuring mental health as a specifically defined directorate of health care and appears to be shifting resources from mental health to generic health services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), on the Front Bench, talked about bringing mental health closer to acute care, and that is obviously a better approach. Mind is concerned that in Plymouth the limited funds are being shifted away from mental health support. The charitable sector, too, is struggling as a result of a reduction in resources. There are some truly excellent support groups in Plymouth, and I pay huge tribute to the staff and volunteers at those, many of whom have come through mental health illness themselves. There are far too many of them to name, but I just wanted to put that on the record.
	I have mentioned housing pressures. How many of us have constituents who are living in desperately overcrowded situations? We encounter pressure on parents because their children have turned up, perhaps with their grandchildren. A woman who came to my surgery is sleeping on the sofa in her front room while the rest of the house is taken up by her children. These people are clearly struggling. Many of them are on antidepressants or more powerful medication, and some are suicidal. Our caseworkers also deserve enormous credit for the way in which they sometimes have to support people in those circumstances.
	Equally, housing officers often cannot manage the tide of human misery that they face. People with mental health issues are much more difficult to deal with. A housing officer can understand someone who has a physical disability, as it is often obvious—it is there in front of them and it is not invisible—and they can offer adaptations or a possible move. Things do not work in the same way for people with mental health issues, and it is much more difficult to deal with those.
	As we have heard repeatedly, mental health cuts across every area of our society. We have heard a great deal about the need and support for our armed forces and the excellent work done by organisations such as Combat Stress. We have heard about the iniquitous treatment of people at the hands of Atos and about problems faced by those in the criminal justice system, but there are other areas to address. The hon. Member for Totnes touched on the issue of young women, who clearly often need support both before and after childbirth. Midwives are potentially very important in that scenario, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister on what guidance and training they specifically receive on supporting women in those circumstances.
	Work is also being done to address the needs of children. The Minister mentioned the work of YoungMinds, but we are still failing very many young people. Recent media reports on suicides highlighted just how difficult
	it can be for young people who are being bullied or are struggling through other personal issues. Tragically, schools and other responsible adults have failed to recognise what was going on in their lives. I pay tribute to the incredibly well-informed speech by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which specifically dealt with those issues. YoungMinds, which was praised by the Minister, is concerned by the service cuts and reductions in provision for child and adolescent mental health. We also have to address an issue about the transition from support in that area into adulthood. That area needs a lot more attention, and I hope that the Minister will address some of these specific issues in his correspondence with us.
	Finally, I wish to offer my support to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in his attempt to make significant changes on the whole issue of stigma. Intolerance or discrimination in employment, and preventing people from holding public office because they have been sectioned, is wholly unacceptable. He is right to say that this archaic piece of legislation needs to be binned, and I welcome the support that he has received from the two Front-Bench teams. I also welcome the fact that we will have a further opportunity to debate some of these crucial issues and just get it out there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members can see, about nine Members are trying to catch my eye and we have just over an hour. We want to get everyone in, do we not? If everybody speaks for only six or seven minutes we can accommodate everybody, so I ask Members to be time-focused, please.

Phillip Lee: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this important debate. There have been some very impressive speeches, not least from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I have the pleasure of being, like him, a member of the Administration Committee because very early on in my time here at Westminster I realised that there were quite significant mental health problems among my colleagues. A few of them had approached me so I went to the usual channels, wanting to know what support was available for colleagues. As a consequence, I was put on the Administration Committee and I am now also on the medical panel. I am encouraged by the support available to colleagues if they choose to use it.
	I congratulate the shadow Front-Bench team on what appears to be a decision to lead with mental health. It is an important decision that is politically astute and those on the Government Front Bench ought perhaps to reflect on their goals in that area. My advice would be not to be overambitious.
	I want to reflect on my experience in this area, my family experience and my professional experience before saying a few brief words on GP commissioning. I have heard mention of the police and the concerns about their involvement in this area, so I shall comment on that. Finally, I want to mention the Human Rights Act.
	At a family level, at last count there were three suicides in my extended family. I know a number of people who have had depression and, unfortunately, a family member has recently been diagnosed with early onset dementia. I myself have had moments of, shall we say, fluctuating mood, perhaps a bit more so since I have been in this place, so I feel that I have first-hand experience through my family and myself of how prevalent the problems are.
	I know from my professional experience that the nature of this topic means that it is something one does not forget. I recall clerking in a patient who was a survivor of Auschwitz—I remember the tattoo quite clearly—and the following day, that person hanged himself. I remember the relative of a senior member of the Ministry of Defence at the time breaking down in front of us, which was a quite shocking incident for me as a medical student.
	Finally, I remember a case—I only remembered this as I listened to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—of somebody who had been a victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland and had been relocated to where I was working under the witness protection scheme. That gentleman had experienced guns being held at his temple, in his mouth and so on, and I was in a position to be able to help him.
	The nature of this subject means that it tends to throw up cases that are quite memorable and emotive. I feel strongly about it. Locally, I have done my bit. I have met Rethink Mental Illness and the first hustings I attended during the 2010 general election campaign was run locally by a mental health charity. Broadmoor hospital is in my constituency, at Crowthorne. I have visited there and I would encourage everybody to visit Broadmoor hospital. It is a very interesting place to visit with recidivism rates that are, I imagine, the envy of the prison system.
	I have done my bit to try to raise the profile of the discussion and debate around mental health services, because this is a significant area of concern. About 800,000 people have dementia in this country at the moment and that number will rise—it will double. That is because of ageing and lifestyle, depending on whether it is Alzheimer’s or vascular dementia. The estimated cost of mental health is £89 billion by 2026, although perhaps that figure is out of date as I heard the shadow Secretary of State give a larger figure. Half of that is due to loss of earnings in the work place. The significance of this topic cannot be overstated.
	Unfortunately, more than half of people with anxiety disorders do not interact with the service and about a third of those with depression do not interact with it. The services we have cannot deal with the demands being placed on them, so God only knows what it will be like when everyone starts turning up to see me as a GP or, now I am here, me as an MP. I fear that this will need some realism on the part of the current Health team and any future Health team that might come from the Opposition side in terms of rationing and prioritisation of resources. For example, I read that we are now giving fertility treatment to everybody. I am sorry, but if I were to prioritise where my funding was going, I know it would go to mental health before it went to fertility treatment. I know that is a difficult thing for people to accept if they have fertility problems but we have to make decisions and I know where my priorities lie.
	Let me address GP commissioning and some concerns that I want to raise with Front Benchers. There is some unease in my profession about the commissioning of psychiatric services—more so than for diabetes, hypertension or any cardiac service. In a recent poll that I saw, about 70% expressed significant concerns about this issue. I want to flag this up because most GPs do not get a lot of psychiatric experience when they are training. I happened to do a post in which I worked with depression and dementia as a junior but quite a few do not. That needs to be borne in mind. Perhaps we need to look at training in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mentioned earlier. The commissioning of mental health services is complex and difficult, and we need to be cautious. I have been broadly supportive of the Government regarding commissioning but psychiatric services are different.
	Another matter that I want to raise is about the police. I heard the earlier comments about the police force and I know that the police are not terribly enthusiastic about getting involved in acute psychiatric crises, but let me tell hon. Members an anecdote. A good friend of mine attended a psychiatric hospital at which someone had been brought in by the police. Six policemen had brought in that person, who was in a violent state of mind, and there was one female psychiatrist there. The six policemen had stab vests on and she was wearing a blouse. Somebody has to do that work and I am slightly concerned about who will do it if the police want to get out of it because the psychiatrists on the front line do not have the same protections that the police have.
	On the Human Rights Act, let me highlight that whereas when people come on to the parliamentary estate they have their bags checked, psychiatrists cannot check the bags of a patient they are about to assess even if that patient has displayed violent intent. So someone could come in with a bag with knives and guns in it and the psychiatrist cannot investigate that bag or have it searched because of the patient’s human rights. I would very much like the Front Bench team to look at that and get back to me.
	I want to take this opportunity to ask a few questions and re-emphasise that the knowledge base of GPs in this area needs to be improved, particularly for commissioning. I should like to know what the Government propose to do in this area. On the issue of choice, it is all very well wanting patients to be able to exercise choice but if they are not capable of doing so because they are profoundly depressed, demented or psychotic how on earth can they exercise that choice? Is the Minister confident that patients will get the care they need? I welcome the £400 million for talking therapies, but I should like to know where that money is being spent. What is the breakdown of the expenditure of that money? Is the Minister confident that it is being spent in appropriate areas? Anecdotally, I am hearing that it is not making much difference on the front line.
	What can be done with regards to the Human Rights Act and the example I have given? We should look at this. Perhaps it is an issue for colleagues in another Ministry, but I would appreciate a response about this.
	Finally, let me raise a local issue. The Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is in my constituency—or at least the parade ground and the buildings are. The residential accommodation is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
	The problem on the Surrey-Berkshire borders is that there is a difference in the mental health care provision from each trust. There is a perverse situation in which people registered at the Royal Military Academy, whether personnel or family members, receive different levels of care. I would appreciate a written response on this from the Minister or from the Ministry of Defence. We may be able to address that with commissioning groups, but it is important, particularly given the comments by some of my colleagues, with reference to our armed forces.
	Finally, may I congratulate everyone in the mental health sphere and anyone who is delivering care. They do so in often challenging circumstances. Doctors, nurses and so on need all the support that they can get in a service that will be increasingly important to us in future.

Julian Lewis: Unlike the doctors who have spoken from the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who spoke with such expertise, I have absolutely no medical qualifications whatsoever, but that has not stopped me giving my opinions on this subject in the past, and I am afraid that it is not going to stop me today.
	I see from the index on my website that this will be the ninth speech that I have made on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall on mental health. Many of those speeches were supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I do not think we will ever hear a finer speech than the one that he made today. In passing, I pay due credit to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whose interest in these matters I have known about for a long time, although not his personal history.
	The speeches that I have made in the past have tended to concentrate on three themes: the importance of separate therapeutic environments for people who have to be admitted when they are acutely mentally ill—it is obviously unwise to have psychotic patients cheek by jowl with people suffering from suicidal depression, for example; the importance of single-sex wards, particularly in mental health units, although that applies to the NHS hospital network as a whole; and the importance of making adequate bed numbers available for people who require periodic admission to a mental health unit.
	We heard from the Minister about the new emphasis on recovery-based programmes, and I am all in favour of that. There is everything to be said for that, but even its most ardent advocates do not deny that there will always be a need for in-patient beds for some people some of the time. I am concerned that the cuts imposed on in-patient beds may mean that if we are not very careful indeed there will be enough beds available in future only for people who are sectioned. Those people who wish to receive the support and the underpinning—the fall-back position—of an in-patient bed when they are experiencing an acute episode may be unable to secure one.
	It has rightly been said that a debate at national level brings out the best in people in the House of Commons. However, the debate at local level does anything but bring out the best, given some of the schemes, plans and measures that have been introduced. In that connection, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) who, in a measured and thoughtful
	way, made a speech that has become all too familiar to me. She talked about the way in which Granville Park in her constituency has been scheduled for closure on the basis of a consultation that she regarded as somewhat suspect.
	I refer the hon. Lady to the Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who discussed similar techniques that were used in his constituency, and to my own experience with the Southern Health foundation trust, which used a similar method to make 35% cuts in in-patient beds for acutely ill adults, even though bed occupancy figures were consistently over 90%. The pattern seems to be something like this: they hold a consultation; they make assertions based on, at best, subjective surveys of what they say people want; they then rely on pseudo-independent “expert” research, which usually turns out not to be independent at all; and finally they bulldoze their pre-existing plans through.
	Therefore, to take the message that Mr Speaker always used to give when teaching the art of rhetoric, which is that a speech should have at most two main points, the main point in my speech is the need for the objective monitoring of statistics so that when we are reconfiguring services we at least know whether there really are spare beds before we close services down.
	I would like to be fairly positive in this debate, brief as my contribution necessarily is, so I would like to say that the health overview and scrutiny committee of Hampshire county council, despite the harsh words I have had to use about it in the past, appears to be taking on board some of my concerns by seeking to ensure, as it has stated in its minutes,
	“that further bed reductions are being safely managed”
	and that it is
	“made aware by the commissioner and provider should future acute inpatient bed demand regularly exceed bed availability in the service.”
	I think that it is terribly important that in the process of reconfiguring we do not simply say that we are recreating a new system in the community while decimating the system that allows people the safety net of an acute bed during those episodes when they are really ill. As I said in my brief intervention on the Minister, if people are to have the confidence to get on with their lives and know that they can have useful and fulfilling careers even while living with and managing a mental illness, it is absolutely vital that they also know that, on the rare occasions when they really need the ultimate support of a few nights or even a week or two in an acute unit, a bed will always be available for them.

Matthew Offord: I will keep my remarks short, as time is certainly against me. I want to focus on the stigma of mental illness and the reasons why I think it continues to exist. We often recoil in horror when we think of the old asylum system in which people were locked up for various reasons. I believe that the care in the community system has been welcomed by most people, and I say that with evidence from the 1994 Richie inquiry into the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis, which broadly endorsed the community care policy.
	Even though the community care policy is widely accepted, the issue of mental health is not accepted by the majority of the British public. I say that with evidence from the 2010 public attitudes survey showing that, although people are broadly sympathetic towards those who suffer from mental illness, some of their attitudes are worse than when the Department of Health first commissioned the poll in 1994. I believe that it is fear that drives this county’s mental health system; not the fear of those who suffer from mental illness, but a fear that is perpetuated by the actions of vested interests and perpetuates the stigma. I believe that it occurs through three main areas: mental health lobby groups, politicians and the media.
	First, fear of those who are mentally ill has been fuelled by lobby groups that use the rare cases of homicide to keep mentally ill people in the public’s consciousness. Although their motivations are honest, the reality is that their actions promote a fear that is not always conducive to their aims. I do not intend to criticise individuals who have suffered terrible personal tragedies, but highlighting mental health issues as aggravating causes in deaths will not reintroduce a policy of asylum hospitals for severely mentally ill people. That behaviour alienates other mental health charities, which consider it to be unproductive.
	Secondly, we as politicians have to take responsibility for reducing stigma. As I have already said to the Minister, the political decision to hold an independent inquiry into every homicide involving a mentally ill person has exacerbated public fear. Following the Ritchie report in 1994, the Department of Health ordered that an inquiry should be held into every homicide involving mental health services, but mental health professionals describe the environment in which they now have to work as an inquiry culture, whereby staff are made aware that any variation from recommended perfect practice could lead to an unpleasant afternoon in front of a cynical committee and the humiliation of being named in one of their reports. Those inquiries are viewed by mental health professionals as a threat, rather than as a corrective mechanism to enforce a “safety first” culture that promotes a perception among the public that every death is preventable.
	It is easy for politicians to fall into that trap of trying to face both ways; indeed, the previous Government did fall into it to some extent. They were described as “compassionate” when they embarked on what the Mental Health Commission called
	“the quickest and most dynamic transformation of policy in the history of state intervention in mental health illness,”
	but to the public they presented an authoritarian face, capitalising on the alarm caused by the random attack on Jill Dando and the assault on George Harrison.
	The third influence on mental health policy is provided by the media. Comments have already been made about the front page of The Sun in 2003, when it faced a significant backlash for branding Frank Bruno “Bonkers” after he had been taken to a psychiatric hospital. But that was not an isolated story. There have been many others, such as “Doc freed psycho to kill” and “Psycho killer was a time bomb waiting to explode”. They all inflame public outrage and continue to promote among the public a perception that mental illness equates to dangerous murderers whom doctors allow out on to the street, free to roam and to kill at will, but that is simply not the case.
	Figures show that there has been no increase in killings by people with a mental illness in the past 40 years, during which time many mental hospitals have been closed in favour of care in the community. Less than one in 10 murders is committed by someone with a mental disorder, and over the past 40 years that number has decreased as a proportion of all homicides, as the overall murder rate has increased over the same time.
	On the representation of mental illness on television, the Scottish Recovery Network found that 45% of characters with mental health problems in soap operas were portrayed as violent or as posing a threat to other people. In real life, it was very concerning when in 2007 Nikki Grahame, someone who clearly has mental health issues, and Pete Bennett, who suffers from Tourette’s, were allowed on “Big Brother” simply to increase its viewing figures.
	Kerry Katona has admitted that when she sought to go on the same programme on Channel 4 in 2010, she failed the psychological test, as she had just come off her bipolar medication and a doctor advised her that it would not be sensible to appear. In 2011, however, when the show went over to Channel Five, that broadcaster did not produce any psychological tests and she was allowed to go on, the consequences of which could be seen each day.
	The biggest change over the past decade has been the increase in protests from people with mental health problems who use the services on offer. Their dissatisfaction is with treatment, its greater emphasis on risk reduction and containment and its narrow focus on medication. Those who suffer from mental health problems dislike the heavy use of antipsychotic and sedative drugs, given their side effects, with some even rejecting completely the biomedical approach, which defines mental health problems as illnesses to be medicated, rather than as social or psychological difficulties to be resolved with other treatments, including talk therapies, for example.
	There were some good measures in the Mental Health Act 2007, but there were also some negative ones, so I ask the Minister to address them and, in particular, to outline the benefits that he thinks the 2007 Act has introduced or, if he does not think that it has introduced any, the coalition Government’s policies to address the need for legislation that is fit for the 21st century.
	The public and politicians want to be assured that the services people receive from mental health organisations are safe and will protect people from such rare but catastrophic attacks as those that have occurred in the past. People with mental health problems, and their families, however, want to be assured that the services are responsive and supportive, not coercive. They want to be included as active partners in, not passive recipients of, their care. However, a coercive service whose priority is public safety is vote-catching, while concern with civil liberties for a minority group, and one with a dangerous image at that, is not.
	Patients continue to be treated with drugs rather than therapy, yet the constant cry is for more talking treatments, which NICE now accepts work for conditions such as schizophrenia. Carers are still neglected; their views are ignored and they lack support. There is huge variability, with some places having great services while others, as has been described today, have appalling services.
	Perhaps the biggest scandal in mental health provision is in physical health. Evidence shows that people with
	severe, enduring mental illness die 15 to 20 years younger than on average. That is partly due to high levels of smoking and use of other drugs—in effect, self-medication. There is also evidence that people with mental illness suffer discrimination in relation to their physical health. They do not get seen as quickly and they do not get treated as well as those in other parts of the NHS dealing with patients who do not suffer from their conditions.
	The prescription for Ministers appears to be this: more talking treatments; better physical care; concerted action to reduce stigma; and more direct payments for those who can cope with them, allowing those on benefits to buy their own care rather than relying on social services.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: To help the remaining speakers keep to time, I am introducing a six-minute limit.

Robert Buckland: I speak as somebody with not only constituency experience of mental health issues but nearly 20 years of professional experience of dealing with a number of cases involving clients with mental health problems committing serious crimes such as murder, and crimes right through the criminal spectrum, many of whom have required the input of consultant psychiatrists and the assistance of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. For many years, it struck me that the question of why those people ended up in that situation was never adequately answered. Years after my first experience with a such a client, I am still struggling to answer that question; perhaps it never will be adequately answered.
	Mental health conditions are an integral part of what being a human is all about; they are with us every day of our lives. We are all, parliamentarians or otherwise, a little more brittle than we sometimes care to admit. Some of the testimony that we have heard today has shone a welcome light on the realities of what it is to be a human. Remembering that rule will guide us much more effectively as a society when we deal with mental health and the sad stigma that still pervades mental health issues far too strongly. However, I will not reiterate what other hon. Members have said about stigma.
	I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this debate. It is not an overstatement to call it historic, because many of the comments that we have heard will be remembered long after it is over, and not only by interested people in the mental health community. That is an excellent example of how this place can really help to make a difference in our wider society.
	As a constituency MP, I take a huge interest in mental health issues in my area. Swindon, like many other towns of its size, has its fair share of mental health challenges. We have excellent local voluntary organisations that are increasingly working together to improve provision. In response to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the way to deal with the challenges of commissioning is for local voluntary groups increasingly to come together to co-ordinate their activities and to make bids for tenders. That is
	what is happening in my constituency. Only last Friday, I was at a meeting of Swindon Charities Working Together, where those from the carers centre, Swindon Mind and other organisations were all talking to each other and co-operating, because they recognise that if they do not, the scenario envisaged by hon. Members whereby the big players secure every commissioning tender will become even more prevalent. We must avoid that if we are to develop genuinely local and properly tailored mental health services.
	Much has been said about the importance of involving service users themselves, and I cannot place enough emphasis on that. We have a wonderful organisation in Swindon called SUNS—the Service User Network Swindon—which runs a listening line that is operated by service users, for service users. So, on those lonely Friday and Saturday nights, if those people with mental health conditions have nowhere else to turn, they can ring their friends, talk to them and work through their problems. That saves thousands of pounds that would otherwise be spent on the use of crisis teams in the acute services. That is diversion. That is the kind of therapy and approach that we need to encourage more.
	There is also much that can be done in the workplace. The Mindful Employer organisation is one of the largest networks of employers in the country. It brings together local businesses, shares best practice and emphasises the fact that it makes good business sense to manage the stresses and strains of the work force more sensibly. I am proud to be what I regard as a mindful employer. One of my employees here in Parliament, Christopher van Roon, has suffered from a mild bipolar disorder—I have his permission to say this to the House—and he manages it with the help of his employers, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and me. He has worked here for two years while dealing with his mental health condition. He enjoys his work and being part of a healthy workplace.
	That is an example of how people with mental health conditions can be brought back into the workplace and shown that there is a way forward. The idea that mental health conditions somehow mean a dead end for people’s lives has to be ended. That is far from the truth. As other hon. Members have said, such experiences can often make people all the stronger.
	My thanks go to all the organisations in Swindon that do so much for mental health provision in my constituency, and also to the army of family members and carers who, in an unsung way, do so much to support those with mental health conditions. I am delighted to have taken part in the debate, and I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Griffiths: I too offer my thanks and praise to my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for securing the debate and for putting mental health at the centre of Parliament and the centre of our thoughts today. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Over recent months, he has played Starsky to my Hutch in relation to mental health debates. He also managed to make my speech today in a much more succinct and erudite manner than I could ever hope to do.
	I rise today to make a plea to the Minister. He graciously attended an Adjournment debate that I secured on the closure of the Margaret Stanhope centre, a mental health facility in my constituency. It was as a result of his intervention that the consultation was extended, and I was grateful for that. The end result, however, was that the local PCT—South Staffordshire PCT—took the decision to close the centre. As a newly elected Member of Parliament, I assumed that such decisions would be taken based on facts and evidence, and that there would be hard facts to enable the PCT’s claims to stack up. I assumed that its claims about the provision that was going to replace the Margaret Stanhope centre would be demonstrable. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said earlier, however, the reality was a mind-blowing situation, in which the inability of the PCT to make any of its claims stack up throughout the process became apparent. I was disappointed, but not surprised, that the PCT dismissed the petition organised by my local newspaper, the Burton Mail, to save this much-loved facility, which some 8,200 people signed. The PCT decided to dismiss it because, it said, the petition did not deal absolutely to the letter with all the options that were in the consultation.
	Throughout the consultation, the PCT made a number of claims. To start with, it said that it had carried out a pilot scheme and could demonstrate that it could reduce the need for in-patient care by a third. Understandably, we asked for the evidence to back that up. After five weeks of asking, it eventually provided me with some occupancy rates. We then asked for further occupancy rates, because the initial ones did not stack up. We asked for daily occupancy rates. It took a further two months for the PCT to give us that information. When we analysed it, it showed that far from reducing the need for in-patient beds by a third, only stays of more than 90 days—a minute part of in-patient care—had been reduced by a third. The vast majority of the figures had stayed the same and one-day admissions had actually gone up.
	We looked further into what the PCT was saying. It had claimed that an independent report by Staffordshire university had said that closing the facility would not have an impact. When we looked at the report, we found that the professor from Staffordshire university who had conducted it was also employed by the PCT. She was on the payroll of the PCT, and yet it was praying in aid her report.
	We cited a benchmarking report by the Audit Commission, which demonstrated that the PCT had among the lowest provision of mental health beds in the country. It stated that of 46 mental health trusts, Staffordshire had the lowest provision. Surprise, surprise, the following quarter’s evidence showed that my PCT had the highest provision. It had shot up from the lowest to the highest. When we explored that a little more, we found that the PCT had included beds such as those for eating disorders and drug and alcohol problems. It had lumped them all together to fix the figures.
	The most worrying thing for me was that when I attended the final hearing where the decision was made, lay members on the panel were asking basic questions such as how many beds were available and what the occupancy rates were, even after a four-month consultation. They clearly did not have any of the information that was necessary to make such an important decision.
	I urge the Minister to think long and hard about how we can bring rigour into such decisions. Mental health issues can affect any family, rich or poor, and are no respecter of intelligence, upbringing or anything like that. It is essential that there is a rigorous, accountable and transparent process before PCTs are able to decide to do away with these vital beds. I urge the Minister to consider how the Government can provide those reassurances.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on what has turned out to be a fantastically refreshing debate, which has been part debate and part group therapy.
	I want to add my own personal contribution. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I suffered from post-natal depression. It is unbelievable how awful you feel when you are sitting with your tiny baby in your arms and your baby cries and so do you. You cannot even make yourself a cup of tea. You just feel so utterly useless. Looking back on that time, I genuinely agree with my hon. Friend that going through that experience makes you a better person. It also makes you determined to do something for other people in that situation.
	Post-natal depression is a key issue for women as individuals. Like many others, I got over it with the help of a good family and husband, and by going back to work. Many people do not get over it. Although the consequences are profound for those women, the consequences for their babies are often even more profound.
	I want to talk briefly about the experience of a baby. When babies are born, they are about two years premature. Their brains have barely developed. They have all of the neurones but none of the neural pathways are laid down. That happens only during the first two years of life. The peak period for the growth and development of a baby’s brain is between six and 18 months, and that growth is literally stimulated by a loving relationship with an adult carer—usually their mum, of course. If a baby’s mum has a lovely, smiling face and always picks them up, cheers them up, hugs them, feeds them and changes them whenever they cry, their brain becomes hard-wired to understand that the world is a good place. They will go on to be a person who can deal with life’s ups and downs, and who retains the idea that the world will be good to them.
	It is like Harry Potter. He had loving parents until he was two, but then along came Lord Voldemort and murdered them, and he had an unspeakable experience until he was into his teens and escaped to Hogwarts. What kept him on the straight and narrow, and understanding right from wrong, was his secure foundation. I put it to the Minister that that is how to secure good emotional health for our society.
	If babies do not have a secure bond—usually with mum, but it can be with another parent or with adoptive parents—their brain develops in such a way that they expect to have to fight or withdraw. Those babies are the people who go on to fail to cope with what life throws at them. They struggle to make friendships, and they are the people who are bullied or become victims, or indeed become bullies themselves at school. Babies at the acute
	end, where there is real neglect and abuse, are the ones who go on to become drug addicts or violent criminals. In fact, research shows that 80% of long-term criminals have attachment problems stemming from babyhood.
	A sad truth about our society is that research shows that 40% of children aged five are not securely attached. Of course, that does not mean that they all go on to become psychopaths or murderers, but it does mean that we are raising generations of babies and young children who do not have the emotional capacity to meet the ups and downs that life throws at them. They will have a much greater tendency than other people to mental illness. They will struggle to have all the things that we perhaps take for granted, such as a secure family and a decent job, and they will be less robust in their emotional make-up.
	There is much that we could do to support people. We heard yesterday in the debate on early intervention about how much more could be done to support social workers and destigmatise going to children’s centres and seeking help. One very good example came from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has talked about it for a long time. Why do we not ensure that people go to a children’s centre to register their baby’s birth, and then to get their child benefit? That would instantly mean that most people would use children’s centres, so it would destigmatise them.
	Children’s centres should not just be places where people go for antenatal and post-natal check-ups; people should be able to go there for psychotherapeutic support such as that offered by the Oxford Parent Infant Project, the charity of which I was chairman for nine years. It provides psychotherapeutic support for families who are struggling to bond with their babies. Social workers, health visitors and midwives love it because it is somewhere to which they can on-refer people. We hear a lot of talk about training for health visitors, but no talk about what they should do when they spot attachment problems and what help they should provide to families to turn the situation around. OXPIP has shown how incredibly easy it is to do so, because both mother and baby are extraordinarily receptive to being supported in such a way as to develop the attunement and empathy that they need for a good relationship with each other.
	Mums who adore their babies do not allow partners to stub cigarettes out on them. They do not shake them to death or neglect and ignore them when they are crying. It is all about building an early relationship. It is greatly in the interests of our society for sound relationships to have been built by the age of two so that we do not constantly have to deal with the consequences of failed attachment later in life.

James Morris: I welcome this important and timely debate. As other hon. Members have said, mental health issues are often marginalised in debates about health in general. Mental health must take centre stage, because mental health problems are widespread across the social system and affect people of all ages.
	As Members have pointed out, there has often been a stigma attached to mental illness, but we are beginning to tackle that stigma head-on both here and, increasingly, through other public figures talking about their mental health problems.
	As we attack that stigma, we must also examine whether our approach to tackling the problem is fit and appropriate for the 21st century. Our approach to mental illness over a number of decades has been based on what I would call the psychiatric model. The model has medicalised mental illness and treated it as something to be dealt with using drug-based therapies. It is dominated by a concern for short-term relief rather than long-term cure. That approach has dominated our thinking about mental illness in mainstream health. In my view, it needs to change, which is why I broadly welcomed the recommendations in the Government’s “No Health without Mental Health” strategy, particularly its emphasis on improving access to psychological therapies. The Government are investing £400 million over the spending review period, which is a welcome development.
	People who suffer from a range of mental health problems need clear access to a range of talking therapies, but it has become fashionable to be sceptical about the effectiveness of long-term approaches such as psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and we must not fall into the trap, as we do in many aspects of modern life, in focusing on therapies that have a short-term effect. I believe strongly that psychoanalytical and psychotherapeutic approaches can help to treat a range of mental health problems, from anorexia and psychosis to schizophrenia. We should not be embarrassed to advocate the use of such therapies.
	At the same time, we need an integrated approach at a local level. I am impressed by the approach taken in Sandwell, part of which I represent. A GP-led approach to mental health care in Sandwell has borne results. The area has high levels of mental ill health, and high social deprivation and unemployment. Local GPs, led by Dr Ian Walton, agreed that depression should be a top priority. They developed an integrated mental health care approach emphasising greater choice, and helping to build emotional resilience and independence. The approach shifts the focus to mental well-being rather than mental illness.
	As other hon. Members have pointed out, GPs are an important first gateway into NHS mental health services and the early identification of treatment for mental health problems. Big steps have been taken in Sandwell to improve GP training to deal with patients presenting complex mental health problems, and Dr Walton and his team have invested time in GP training to improve the efficacy of early diagnosis.
	Improving early diagnosis of mental health problems is a fundamental part of the integrated model that has been successful in Sandwell. It frees resources in secondary care and allows people to deal with their mental health problems in community and family settings. The Sandwell model emphasises positive self-help, access to appropriate talking therapies and a focus on specialist programmes tailored to the needs of patients, which other hon. Members have mentioned. It also emphasises the importance of partnership working with schools, health, employment and other social providers.
	Dr Walton and other local GPs have helped to transform mental health care in Sandwell, with consistently high recovery rates using IAPT of 63%, compared with a national average of just 44%. As we seek to tackle the major problem of mental health across our country, we need that greater emphasis on talking therapies. We need to challenge the psychiatric model of mental health
	treatment that has dominated thinking in our health system for far too long. We need an integrated approach at a local level that takes the best talking therapies and gives people access to the treatment they need. As the debate has illustrated, we also need a commitment from the Government to place mental health as a top priority within our health service as we seek to tackle the problem.

John Glen: In the short time available, I wish to address two subjects. First, I shall consider mental health in the military and the excellent progress made since the election, and refer to the work of my friend and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Secondly, I want to reflect on my experiences dealing with constituents over the past two years. I think that many Members have been surprised by the sheer number of individuals who come to surgeries with mental health problems and associated issues. I want to refer to several of my experiences with constituents.
	Soon after I was elected, one constituent told me about the treatment of her brother, who had recently committed suicide. She was unhappy with his experience and that of her brothers and mother during the previous 20 years, so we convened a meeting with relevant health professionals. I sat in the room for an hour and a half, as we went through the history of that poor man’s experience over 20 years. We have had an excellent discussion this afternoon about the different investments, and new policies, resources and approaches, but it struck me in that meeting that the real challenge was to join up all the different components that make for a proper solution for that family as a whole.
	We were given an excellent briefing in the run-up to this debate, but one comment, in particular, from Mind and Rethink struck home. They wrote that
	“whilst many people with mental health problems receive excellent care, all too often people face barriers in getting the care that they need as people’s journeys to recovery are rarely linear or straightforward.”
	That is the key issue. People do not know what to expect, and because many of these conditions are unseen and the future is unknown, a great deal of fear creeps into families doing their best for a struggling relative. That leads to great tension and anxiety, so it is incredibly important that as we move to a new commissioning environment, we give local providers of appropriate support a voice and enable them to be commissioned. These decisions must be based not on numbers and spreadsheets but on the practical experience of local people.
	The “Fighting Fit” report was a valuable piece of work commissioned in the first few weeks of the Government taking office. It is important to think about mental health in the armed forces in the same way as in other areas, but it is difficult to do so, given the culture in that environment. We heard some excellent statistics and useful perspectives from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) underscoring the fact that many people in the military suffering from mental health issues do not take their first step towards accessing care until more than a decade—13 years, on average, we are told—after they leave the services.
	It is pleasing that progress is being made on the principal recommendations in the “Fighting Fit” report—on increasing the number of mental health professionals conducting outreach work, on the establishment of an online early-intervention service and on a veterans’ information service. That progress is welcome, but much more needs to be done to educate new recruits and personnel throughout their career on the need to be open about their mental health, to admit to it and to seek support from the relevant authorities.
	As everyone has said this afternoon, mental health issues do not discriminate by age, background, career or profession. That is the key message that we need to get into every aspect of life in our country. We need to continue to de-stigmatise mental health issues. We need to work for earlier diagnosis and smarter commissioning arrangements, and to invest in preventive measures to ensure that we achieve the maximum benefit to our society—that is, a lower rate of mental illness in the future.
	As someone who recently endured the misery of seeing those very close to me suffer when a relative was in and out of mental hospital, I realise that this issue is very painful and difficult to talk about, and I commend those Members who have spoken so openly about their experiences and conditions this afternoon.

Oliver Colvile: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing this Backbench Business debate in the first place. Indeed, this is an historic moment, for the simple reason that it must be the first time that three former association officers of the Battersea Conservative association have found themselves speaking in the same debate.

Peter Bottomley: It won’t happen again.

Oliver Colvile: I am sure my hon. Friend is quite right.
	I have followed this issue very closely, because in my maiden speech I gave a pledge that I would try to raise the issue of mental health for our veterans during the course of my time in the House of Commons, however short or long that might end up being. I hope very much that I have been good to my word. Only too often when we have had debates on mental health or veterans issues in the House, we have found that it has been the Armed Forces Minister answering, and although he has always done a brilliantly good job of explaining what is going on, the debate has unfortunately never had a joined-up feel about it—for instance, by including Ministers from the Department of Health. That is why I very much welcome this debate.
	I congratulate both the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on their sheer candour in speaking about this issue. If we could capture my hon. Friend’s energy, we would sort out the national grid once and for all.
	I recently had a Falklands veteran come to talk to me about how he feels he is being discriminated against in his benefits. That is something we most certainly need
	to look at as a House. My interest in this whole matter began in 2000, shortly after I was selected as the candidate in Plymouth, Sutton, when I went out with the people from one of the churches and saw them handing out soup and sandwiches to various people. Plymouth, being a major—indeed, principal—naval port, most certainly has a lot of veterans issues. There was a man on that occasion who had left the Army and was sleeping rough. He had come across real problems because he had taken to drink—he had obviously taken to drugs as well, which was also a very big issue.
	Indeed, when my father served in the Navy—he went in as a boy sailor at the age of 14, serving in Dartmouth and subsequently in the second world war—he had the job of picking up the head of a man he was sharing a cabin with and throwing it over the side, into the sea. I think that would most certainly have given me the heebie-jeebies, I can tell you that, although it did not seem to affect him at all.
	A number of Members have made a series of points in this debate which I fully agree with. I was going to talk a little bit about the position now, as we commemorate the Falklands war, 30 years on, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has already dealt with that. However, we have to recognise that the families are the first people to get to know whether mental health issues are arising and how combat stress affects them. We need to remember that at the time when my father ended up having to deal with these issues, there were no mechanisms in place to look after his mental health or even try to take it forward. As others have said, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced a very good report, which has very much formed the basis of Government policy in this area.
	I ended up talking to Mind during the course of the last few days. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and I are speaking as one, as she made the point that the amount of money devoted to mental health in Plymouth is an issue. It seems that money has been taken away from mental health to be given to those who suffer from physical ailments. I think that we most certainly need to look at that.
	Last week, during the jubilee recess, I visited the Glenbourne mental health unit at the Derriford hospital. I was told that it had seen a significant rise in the number of people with mental health issues, especially from the military, and I was told how important it was to ensure that something was done about it.
	We must make sure that we adopt a proactive campaign so far as stress and mental illness are concerned, and that we give our support to those organisations that are in the business of delivering it, while also ensuring that we have trained GPs to look after people. The Jesuits have a saying, do they not—“Give me the child until the age of eight, and I will show you the man”? That was very much the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) raised in her contribution, for which I was grateful.
	Let me finish on a small note. We need significantly more joined-up government between Departments. We should not be talking only about the Ministry of Defence, but about the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions. If we can do that, we can make real progress.

Nicky Morgan: I am sorry that in the short time available, I will not be able to mention all of the fantastic speeches we have heard this afternoon. We can definitely say that we have considered the motion fully—and we should all be very proud of that achievement.
	I shall make a few brief points to draw the issues of the debate together. First, we all agreed that the debate was somewhat overdue and that it was time that mental health was discussed more often in the Chamber. I hope that we have shown the House of Commons at its best. I certainly think we have; I think this is one of the best debates I have attended since I was elected just over two years ago. We were right to hold out for a debate in the main Chamber, which was an important issue.
	Secondly, we have shown that Members of Parliament are not immune to mental health experiences. I would like to pay particular tribute to the speeches of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who should win an award for bringing the name of Harry Potter into her speech.
	We have shown this afternoon why it is so important for my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) to introduce his private Member’s Bill. I am sure that we all wish him well with it and look forward to working with him on a cross-party basis—another significant achievement from today’s debate. I thank both Front-Bench teams for their support for my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.
	I think it was the Minister who said that this issue is not about them and us; it is just about us. Mental health affects everybody within society, and it is up to all of us to challenge stigma. Mention was made of media leadership, particularly of the campaign run by the Sunday Express. Mention was also rightly made of the importance of using the right language when we talk about mental health. That is certainly something that I shall take away from this debate.
	The point has been made that many different treatments work and that we should respect that. I entirely take the shadow Secretary of State’s point about moving the NHS into the 21st century. His point about the physicality and the separateness of our mental health trusts and buildings was a good one. I had not considered that point before; the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) talked about the many challenges faced by local mental health services and those working in them, and her speech perhaps best summed them up. We have also heard concerns about the work capability assessments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) argued that different parts of the Government needed to work more closely together in the sense that a number of different Ministers could have sat on the Front Bench to talk about this issue.
	Finally, I want to thank all the speakers, the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate, everyone who has watched it outside and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) mentioned, everyone currently working within the mental health system.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of mental health.

business of the House (19 June)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 19 June the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to immigration not later than four hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michael Fabricant.)

WALSALL-RUGELEY LINE (ELECTRIFICATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Fabricant.)

Aidan Burley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing a debate on the electrification of the Chase line, which is the line from Walsall, just outside Birmingham, to Rugeley in my Staffordshire constituency.
	The Chase line is actually a key section of a longer rail route running from Birmingham New Street up to Rugeley Trent Valley, but whereas the section from Birmingham New Street to Walsall is electrified—taking in Duddeston, Aston, Witton, Perry Bar, Hamstead, Tamebridge Parkway, Bescot Stadium and Walsall—the section from Walsall to Rugeley is diesel only. Hence the onward journey to Bloxwich, Bloxwich North, Landywood, Cannock, Hednesford, Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley is considerably slower, with poorer passenger service and fewer, older trains.
	It goes without saying that this is the key rail route for my constituents. Thousands of them use the line daily to commute to and from work—usually in the city of Birmingham—and many commute to Walsall for work as well. At weekends, it is the main route into Birmingham for shopping, leisure and social life. Birmingham is the second city of this country, and fast, frequent and reliable services to and from that vital economic hub are essential to the economic growth of towns such as Cannock, Hednesford and Rugeley, just 15 miles away.
	Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Keith Fitch and the members of the Cannock Chase rail promotion group, who have campaigned tirelessly over many years for the reintroduction and, now, for the development of passenger services on the Chase line. I also thank John Morgan, the principal planning officer at Cannock Chase district council, who is responsible for the railways and is a long-time campaigner for the electrification of the Chase line. It is a cliché nowadays to say that people have worked tirelessly for a cause, but the work that John has done over the years with successive council administrations and Members of Parliament has been far above and beyond the call of duty. It can really only be described as a labour of love, stemming from his passion for the railways. John is watching in the Gallery tonight. After some 35 years of commitment to the railways and the electrification of the Chase line, it would be a fitting end to his career for him to see his goal finally realised.

Gavin Williamson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that people have been campaigning for the electrification of the Chase line because they know that it will bring massive economic benefits to his constituency as well as mine and many others?

Aidan Burley: The short answer is absolutely, and I shall say more about that later. One of the startling facts that I discovered when researching for my speech was that the electrification of the line has been a project for various council administrations and Members of Parliament
	of all colours since the early 1960s—20 years before I was even born. It really is a project whose time has come.

David Winnick: I must declare an interest, as not only do a good many of my constituents use the line, but I myself use the section between Birmingham New Street and Bloxwich North. I therefore understand perfectly the position that the hon. Gentleman is describing.
	This is, of course, an all-party effort, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to make any party propaganda points. I certainly have no wish to do so, and nor has my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). For the reasons that have been given, the project has all-party support. However, is it not also the case that electrification could create well over 1,000 jobs? As the hon. Gentleman knows, jobs are urgently needed in our part of the world.

Aidan Burley: Indeed. I believe that the exact figure is 1,386, and that is part of the economic case that I hope to put to the Minister this evening.
	Since the general election, the upgrading of the Chase line has been one of my key priorities. I have been working closely with all the key players, including the councils, Centro, Network Rail and London Midland, the operator of the trains on the line. I have already hosted two successful stakeholder meetings, bringing together all the key players to discuss how we can proceed with the development of the line.
	It is fair to say that there has been massive historical frustration as to why this line has not been electrified at some point in the past 20 years, and why the scheme is still not included as a named scheme for control period 5—CP5—as part of the high-level output statement, or HLOS, due to be published by the Department in July this year. I am aware that reference was made to Rugeley-Walsall electrification in the initial industry plan in September 2011, but only as a “candidate scheme” rather than as a commitment. That was extremely disappointing as we had hoped that the strategic importance of the project would have been recognised and there would have been a firm commitment in the Government’s HLOS announcement for CP5.
	I am pleased, however, that since the election we have managed to persuade Network Rail to fund the west midlands line speed improvement scheme for the Chase line. This speed upgrade from 45 mph to 75 mph, announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, will not only help support our efforts to bring business to the area, but it will reinforce the message that Cannock Chase is the place to come to in south Staffordshire. However, Network Rail has not set any time scale for the line speed upgrade, and it may not happen until after the current Walsall to Rugeley re-signalling programme is completed. Options are being drawn up over the next six months, but the funding does not have to be spent until March 2014. This means it could take a further two years before my constituents see any improvements.
	The line speed improvement is, however, only a sticking plaster on the wound; the real fix that has long been needed is the electrification of the Chase line itself, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the Minister why that is the case. Over recent years, the Rugeley-Cannock-Walsall-Birmingham line—the Chase
	line—has continued to go from strength to strength. Increased passenger growth of 10% per annum or more has been achieved in recent years. Over half a million passenger journeys a year are now made just from the three stations in my constituency. The Chase line now has the second highest levels of passenger growth in the Centro area. Yet despite that, the route has seen a reduction in services and shorter trains, most recently last December through the service level commitment changes, as a direct result of a shortage of diesel trains. That is because the Chase line is the only Centro route operating out of Birmingham New Street where diesel trains have to operate. That has resulted in an inefficient mix of diesel and electric services between Birmingham and Walsall, in order for diesel trains to operate north of Walsall on the non-electrified section to Rugeley. Therefore, in spite of having one of the highest annual passenger growth figures in the west midlands, passenger services on the route had to be reduced from December 2011 as a direct result of it not being possible to operate the whole Birmingham-Walsall-Rugeley service with electric trains and the need to transfer scarce diesel rolling stock to provide capacity on other routes.
	The situation is predicted to get even worse. From 2013, the Chase line will have the lowest service frequency of any suburban route radiating from Birmingham and yet still have one of the highest passenger growths. So I say to the Minister that we urgently need to address this contradiction of passenger growth and reduced services, and the only solution is the electrification of the Chase line. That must be included in CP5.

David Winnick: On the point about last December’s reduction in service, many of my constituents have pointed out to me that people took to the roads instead. There is already a lot of congestion on the roads from Birmingham to my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, and it would get even worse.

Aidan Burley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the railways have undergone a renaissance in recent times and it seems perverse that at a time when more and more people wish to use the railways we are in effect forcing them on to roads that are already heavily congested. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is a regular driver on the M6 and surrounding roads, so he will know that traffic congestion is a major problem on them. We need more people on the trains, not fewer. It is therefore perverse to force them on to the wrong mode of transport.

David Winnick: I rely entirely on public transport.

Aidan Burley: Excellent.
	Given the history of this scheme, it is astonishing that this small 15-mile section of track has not already been electrified. The scheme originally had a high-profile inclusion in the former Railtrack network management statement in 1999, including a detailed pre-feasibility study showing it was deliverable. It was again identified in Network Rail’s electrification strategy 2009, and in its west midlands route utilisation strategy in 2011, as a scheme that should be fully considered in more detail as part of the west midlands and Chilterns route utilisation strategy.
	Although Centro and other local stakeholders feel that the west midlands and Chilterns route utilisation strategy process did not consider the case for electrifying the route as effectively as it could have, recent work by Network Rail demonstrates that the electrification scheme has a positive business case and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2, even without the inclusion of the wider strategic benefits that will arise from creating an alternative electrified rail connection between the west midlands and the west coast main line, which links the region to the north-west and Scotland.
	The Minister may not be aware that recent work undertaken by KPMG for Centro has also identified significant further regional economic benefits from the electrification of this route, which, again, are not included in Network Rail’s business case. KPMG’s analysis indicated that electrification would generate an additional £113 million of gross value added benefit per annum and support the creation of 1,370 additional jobs, as has been mentioned. That is why Centro and others locally are so passionate about seeing the Government confirm the Walsall to Rugeley electrification as a high priority scheme for 2014 to 2019 in the Secretary of State’s forthcoming high-level output statement on rail investment. That is also why both Centro and the West Midlands Regional Rail Forum have now identified the scheme as the No.1 electrification priority for the whole of the west midlands region.

Valerie Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It may seem to be a bit geeky and for train-spotters, but this subject is very important for our constituents. I am pleased that Walsall is not being ignored, because it usually is. Will he say whether any of this is part of the High Speed 2 bid? Will we be able to have a bit of slippage in that bid in order to see this scheme come to fruition?

Aidan Burley: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I will come on to deal with HS2 and the way it connects up a little later in my speech, when I believe I will address her question. I also thank her for signing the letter to the Secretary of State, which I should also mention, from just about all the MPs along the line in support of the scheme; as has been said, this is a cross-party effort, as we all want to see this happen.
	Although Centro and other regional stakeholders strongly support the electrification of the Walsall to Rugeley route, the train operator, London Midland, also believes that electrification would deliver ongoing operational cost savings, improved journey times and reduced crowding. Electrification work will make it easier to create a larger loading gauge, allowing the increasingly common W10 containers to be transported. In the longer term, electrification could allow services such as the Birmingham to Liverpool service to run via Walsall, significantly improving Walsall’s connectivity to Stafford and the north-west, and giving new commercial opportunities to serve a town that is now larger than Wolverhampton, as I learnt yesterday.
	The Minister will be aware that the electrification strategy as part of the network route utilisation strategy identified the following gaps as driving whether a route should be considered for electrification:
	“Type A—Electrification to enable efficient operation of passenger services…Type B—Electrification to enable efficient operation of
	freight services…Type C— Electrification to increase the availability of diversionary routes…Type D—Electrification to enable new patterns of service to operate”.
	The Minister can take comfort that the Walsall to Rugeley line electrification would cover all those gap types.
	The Minister will also be aware that Network Rail has identified a number of criteria to be considered when looking at whether to develop a project for CP5. Again, we in the west midlands strongly believe that all these criteria, as set down by Network Rail, are met. Tonight, I just want to highlight three key criteria, the first of which is affordability. Railtrack commissioned Atkins in 1999 to undertake a pre-feasibility study into the electrification of the route, and, with the exception of clearance issues in the Walsall station area, the route appears to be straightforward to electrify. It must be remembered that the line was earmarked for electrification in the 1960s as part of the west coast electrification scheme, and that all the bridges and other structures were rebuilt with electrification clearances. Atkins assessed the cost of electrification as approximately £32.6 million, plus an extra £6 million to achieve W10 gauge clearance. However, it is worth noting that the recent work by Centro reduces that to just £30 million, or £1 million per mile of track—15 miles in each direction.
	The second criterion I want to draw to the Minister’s attention is value for money. There should be a financially positive benefit-cost ratio of more than two. We believe that the multiple benefits that the route drives have already resulted in a positive BCR of 1.2. That will be further enhanced by the KPMG work, which will push it over 2. Network Rail’s business case assessment is narrowly defined and has been superseded by the Centro-commissioned KPMG work that takes into account the wider benefits such as job creation and economic development. As has been mentioned, it would mean more than 1,300 new jobs and a gross value added of £113 million, which are not reflected in Network Rail’s more tightly defined business case, which still gives a positive BCR. We therefore urge the Minister to take that into account as part of her decision process for named schemes in CP5 as part of the HLOS next month. This is a capital scheme that will trigger economic development and job creation across the west midlands.
	The third criterion for Network Rail that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention is the extent to which economic growth is driven. As I hope we are showing tonight, the service improvements arising from the scheme would drive significant economic growth in the Walsall and Cannock areas, which are badly affected by the economic downturn. The freed-up capacity elsewhere on the network would also support wider economic growth in the west midlands. There would also be the ability to redeploy diesel capacity on the busy Snow Hill network, which would help the economy of Birmingham city centre to develop further. Without the electrification the current service on the line could worsen, leading to economic growth constraint.
	I believe the scheme meets all the key criteria for electrification set down by Network Rail and that is why all our local stakeholders believe that Walsall to Rugeley electrification strongly meets Network Rail’s criteria for CP5 named schemes for 2014 to 2019. As a result of all this, on 18 May I sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport signed
	by 20 key stakeholders, including the chairs of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Black Country and Staffordshire, and Stoke local enterprise partnerships, the leaders of all the metropolitan, county and district local authorities on the route, private sector business leaders, the chamber of commerce and six MPs with constituencies along the route, some of whom are in their places tonight, all giving their unequivocal support for Walsall to Rugeley Chase line electrification. As can be seen from the number of MPs from both sides of the House who signed the letter to the Secretary of State and who are here tonight, this scheme has the support of the region.
	The scheme has the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who has already written to the Minister about this matter but cannot take part in this debate because he is a Whip, even though he is sitting in front of me on the Treasury Bench tonight. It also has the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has publically given his firm support, saying:
	“Electrification of this line is a vital, not simply for local and regional transport, but for the national network as it provides alternative routes for electric only trains.”
	It also has the support my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), who was the former Member for Cannock and Burntwood and is now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, He cannot speak in the debate as he is a Defence Minister, but he wanted me to inform the house that when he was the Member for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983 to 1992, he tried to get the line to be upgraded, saying then:
	“It would provide an invaluable alternative for occasions when the West Coast mainline between Rugeley and Birmingham International is out of action for repairs.”
	It is even supported by the Government Chief Whip, himself a user of the Chase line in his former life as a councillor on Cannock Chase district council and as a coal miner in my own constituency. It also has the cross-party support of all the MPs along the route, including the hon. Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), for Stafford and for Lichfield.
	I know that the Minister, quite rightly, will not be persuaded simply by pleas from MPs. I am aware that such schemes require more than just special pleading; they require cold hard facts and benefit-cost ratios, and that is what I have tried to convey to the Minister tonight. As I have said, recent work by Network Rail this year has already established that this £30 million scheme has a positive business case with a BCR of 1.2 and the further research by KPMG commissioned by Centro shows that that can easily increase to more than 2 when the wider economic benefits are taken into account. An investment of £30 million will give the west midlands a regional gross value added benefit of £113 million and the regional employment impact will create nearly 1,400 jobs. That seems like a good return to me and one that meets the Network Rail investment criteria.
	I am conscious that this bid would be in competition with other bids for electrification and must therefore be competitive. Before this debate, I listened to a recent Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the
	Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to ask for electrification of the midland main line at a capital cost of a rather whopping £530 million, with more than 50 bridges needing to be rebuilt. The Minister, who is also replying to this debate, said then that
	“we will need to strike a balance”
	between different types of project and that what gets funding depends on a
	“fair assessment of competing priorities elsewhere on the rail network.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 148-49.]
	Given that this project would cost only £30 million and would need only two bridges to be slightly modified, I hope the Minister can recognise it as an easy win—a piece of low-hanging fruit that she can grasp. It is one of those different types of project that should be considered on its own merits next to the big boys.
	In conclusion, if ever there were a time for this scheme to be delivered by the “greenest Government ever”, it is now. It has been in the planning stage since the early 1960s—20 years before I was born—and it has been pursued by former MPs for Cannock Chase of both political colours as well as by local councils and regional authorities. The local enterprise partnerships see it as essential to the commercial interests along the routes. They also think it essential to connecting the benefits of HS2 to the area and driving job creation and economic growth. KPMG’s analysis has demonstrated that this electrification and consequent passenger service improvements would dramatically improve accessibility to labour and goods markets, stimulating economic growth and job creation and increasing productivity for the west midlands as a whole.
	The electrification of this 15-mile strategic missing link in the electrified rail network of the west midlands would create an alternative route to the north-west for passenger and freight services, relieving the existing congested Birmingham to Stafford main line, so this is not just a local rail scheme. It would offer regional and national benefits, but it is essential, if those benefits are to be realised, that these outputs form a key part of the Government’s July announcement on the high-level output specification. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect positively on the strong business case for this project. When she does, I hope she will reach the same conclusion as we have—that the electrification of the Walsall to Rugeley Chase line should be included as a named scheme for CP5 as part of the high-level output specification due to be published by her Department next month.

Theresa Villiers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on securing this debate on such an important issue. It is very timely because decisions on the Government’s high-level output specification are imminent. I have been impressed by the determination of the coalition of different organisations campaigning for full electrification of the Chase line, and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who has this evening put the case for that improvement to the House with passion, clarity and detail. I also note the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is in his place, and the work done by many others, such as the Cannock Chase rail
	promotion group. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, I think it is right to single out for praise John Morgan of Cannock Chase district council. As we have heard from my hon. Friend, Mr Morgan’s knowledge of the Chase line is unsurpassed. I am told that he has shown huge dedication over many years in seeking the upgrade he wants to see.
	Subject to affordability, the Government support the progressive electrification of the rail network as a way of reducing the cost of running the railways, improving services for passengers and reducing carbon emissions from transport. Electric trains are more reliable, quieter and more comfortable than their diesel equivalents. They are also better for the environment and cheaper to operate. The Government believe it is essential that the cost of running the railways should come down. In March we published plans for achieving major efficiency savings in our Command Paper. We believe that further electrification can assist us in delivering our goal of a more efficient rail network. That is one reason why we are going ahead with significant electrification programmes in the north-west and on the great western line.
	We accept that there is a positive business case for proposals to extend electrification on the Chase line. I also note the strong local support and the long-running nature of the campaign, as well as the regional support that has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. I agree with him that considerable benefits could be delivered if it were possible to fund electrification of the line. That would allow more energy-efficient electric services to operate and would remove the existing inefficient and resource-intensive mix of diesel and electric services between Walsall and Birmingham. That could reduce the cost of running the service, which is always an important factor. An added advantage would be the release of the diesel rolling stock used between Birmingham and Rugeley Trent Valley for use elsewhere on the network. Electrifying the Chase line could also provide wider economic benefits, as my hon. Friend rightly identified—for example, by broadening access to labour and goods markets, and by boosting productivity and job creation in the area.
	A key factor in considering the case for the further electrification that my hon. Friend wants is the fact that the Chase line is an entry point for trains to the nation’s second city. In recent years the line has become an increasingly important commuter service in and out of Birmingham. The electrification between Walsall and Rugeley could therefore be a way to strengthen peak capacity into Birmingham. Currently, as we have heard, the only electrified route from the west coast main line to Birmingham from the north is the Wolverhampton line. Electrification of the Chase line could offer a second electric route via Walsall from those destinations in the north.
	That provides an opportunity for the development of services through Birmingham, Walsall, Stoke-on-Trent, Crewe, Liverpool and elsewhere in the north. It would deliver an electric diversionary route from the west midlands to the north for passenger services from Birmingham New Street and for freight services, relieving the line through Wolverhampton. As well as improving local and regional services, electrification could have a strategic national value.
	The benefits of electrification could be considerable and I am clear that this project is a serious contender for funding. The Government are considering how much
	funding will be available for rail investment in the five-year CP5 period up to 2019 and how it should be allocated between competing priorities. We will announce our decisions on the HLOS 2—high-level output specification 2—statement by the end of July. The case for electrification of the Chase line will be considered as part of that process. I shall ensure that the deliberations and points made in this debate are fed into that process.
	The project has been chosen by Centro and the west midlands regional rail forum as their No. 1 electrification priority for the west midlands, and it is supported by the business community and the local enterprise partnership. That local support is something that we shall take into account in our forthcoming decisions on what can go into the next HLOS. As we have heard, reference is made to the project in Network Rail’s initial industry plan, which sets out the options for funding in CP5. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the approach to the scheme by Network Rail in the industry plan but, like him, I am pleased that additional work has been undertaken since the plan’s publication further to develop the business case and respond to comments from stakeholders in the west midlands and achieve a clearer understanding of the underlying evidence and facts on what electrification would mean and what it would cost.

David Winnick: The Minister mentioned stakeholders. I am sure she will bear in mind the point that I made earlier that this has the support of all the Members of Parliament, and there is absolutely no political controversy whatsoever.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s restatement and, yes, I am very much aware of that.
	We recognise that there is a business case for a number of the schemes identified in the industry plan that are supported by Centro, including greater peak capacity into Birmingham and extra capacity between Birmingham and Tamworth and in the Worcester area. Whether we can give the go-ahead to Chase line electrification and Centro’s other aspirations depends on what is affordable within available budgets. We also have to weigh up competing priorities elsewhere on the rail network. Decisions on HLOS 2 have not yet been taken, but this debate will provide very useful input into the Government’s thinking on this important matter. It is worth remembering that Chase line passengers are in line to receive improved services with a £5.4 million package of improvements announced by Network Rail in 2011 to increase line speed on the Chase line from 45 mph to 75 mph, reducing journey times for passengers travelling from all stations on the line.
	We fully understand that the aspiration is to go further, and we recognise the strength of support for electrification, which is something that we will consider with great seriousness in the weeks between this debate and the announcement that we shall make in the summer on which projects can receive funding in the CP5 control period between 2014 and 2019.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.